Dear Dr Neeraj!
In his article "3 Simple rules of marital disharmony", astrologer Tej. K. Zadoo presented Sh.H.N. Katve method for the evaluation marital disharmony. In this method he evaluate Upapada lagna and 2nd house from this lagna (Rule B): "If the UpaPada and/or second house from the UpaPada is afflicted by a malefic by being posited there or by aspect then there will be complete marital disharmony leading to divorce/separation." But as I can see in examples he uses Parashara aspects, and no Jaimini aspects. It is confusing for me. Is this Parashara aspects are correct (according to Sh.H.N. Katve method), or is made some misinterpretation? I just want to clarify this incompleteness in the article.
Thanks in advance for your answer!
Question for Dr Neeraj
Forum rules
READ Forum-Wide Rules and Guidelines NOTICE: OFFENSIVE POSTS WILL BE DELETED, AND OFFENDERS WILL HAVE ALL POSTS MODERATED.
READ Forum-Wide Rules and Guidelines NOTICE: OFFENSIVE POSTS WILL BE DELETED, AND OFFENDERS WILL HAVE ALL POSTS MODERATED.
Re: Question for Dr Neeraj
It should by Jaimini aspect Fixed{2,5,8,11}sign aspect the movable{1,4,7,10} sign except for the adjacent one and vice versa]. All common signs aspect the other common signs[ 3, 6, 9, 12 signs]. Uppada is used in Jaimini astrology.
A person should not be too honest. Straight trees are cut first and honest people are screwed first.
“Reasoning with a drunkard is like
Going under water with a torch to seek for a drowning man.”
“Reasoning with a drunkard is like
Going under water with a torch to seek for a drowning man.”
Re: Question for Dr Neeraj
Thanks anuradha but I already know that. If you look in mentioned article the author uses Parashara graha aspects and not rashi aspects and that is questionable and confusing because the Upapada lagna belongs to the "world" of Jaimini. Please check the article.