Anuradha ji,
It seems you are going in circles. Whatever you are saying is already answered. I will repeat some of them for you & for readers:
Contact the Publisher with the information given & resolve any doubts. The book was written in 1884 & is Sanskrit only. Coming to Planetary aspects I am relying on
Ganit Jyotish here & its not up for argument as all Phalit systems Jaimini, Parashari, Nadi etc. rest on
Ganit Jyotish. If planetary aspects are defined using longitudes then it is what it is.
You are talking about BPHS references you provided & it was told to NOT rely on
Notes provided by the translator after the
Translations. This is because the
Notes part is translator's
opinion on the
Translation. So you are not quoting Classical Text there, you are quoting someone's
opinion on it. With that I provided BPHS & other Translations where it is clear how Planetary Aspects are defined in
Ganit Jyotish. Here they are again:
http://i44.tinypic.com/35l9j0p.jpg
http://i41.tinypic.com/xasb4l.jpg
http://i43.tinypic.com/2i91hs1.jpg
http://i39.tinypic.com/14d1077.jpg
http://i44.tinypic.com/33yi4ir.jpg
For your Mansagari verses I provided ones with different wordings. Even if we ignore that for a bit, just look at the Sanskrit content for the supposed Navamsa progeny verse. Not only it is an
out-of-order odd inclusion in the flow of the book but
nowhere it says "
ansh" or "
Navamsa" in the Sanskrit content of the verse itself (and if you look at all other verses about Drekkana, Saptamsa etc the Sanskrit content literally mentions Drekkana or Saptamsa in Sanskrit). In other words its the Hindi Translation that is corrupt here by talking about Navamsa when its
not found in the Sanskrit verse. Now going back to the same progeny verse that I posted from another version - it had a slight variation which was the inclusion of
combust Mars in it. Can there be combustion in Navamsa?
No. This verse you posted also had a basic error about Rahu being in a Kendra while Ketu in 5th house. Is that possible?
No. Hence the translation is corrupt even if we ignore the basic rules of
Ganit Jyotish. And how the translator translated
Panchamasthgrahaphalam to
Results of 5th Bhava in Navamsa kundli is out of my understanding.
Aspects are based on longitudes, so you are most likely reading Saravali wrong (with Varga as a chart presupposition).
We talked about Hora Ratnam reference too & I indicated if you can make sense out of the translation, then write about it here. The translation is senseless & cannot be applied to read a chart. My writing is just trying to make sense out of it. Refer to the earlier post for detail.
General Aspect is a layman's way of talking about aspects (as is told in the screenshot links earlier in this post). So
Sphuta is the calcuation of its
value which is what will have an impact on the real life result. So if we assume Aspects in Vargas, what does it even mean to have an Aspect without an Aspectual value (as there are no longitudes there so Sphuta is
non existent)? What impact in real life can it cause with no value? And if we say that in Vargas the
General Aspect is 100% from one Sign to another then it follows that in Rashi chart planets have 100%
General Aspect as well as a separate value of
Sphuta Aspect? What does that even mean? Several such inconsistencies arise from absurd assumptions of reading Vargas as separate charts.
Thanks for the kind words
Astroduffer &
Iluvmyindia ji. The primary message of this thread is to study at least a few texts cover to cover for yourself. Don't believe anyone but don't doubt them either, see it for yourself. The serious ones will do that & whatever they conclude then is fine. Chances are they will make the correct inference.
Rathore
.. any perceived emergence from me seemingly transcendental is purely fictitious from myself. 
. Starts to sound absurd...
