Functional Benefic/Malefic

[eternalautumn]

I cannot figure out what this is. Google is no help. I have a feeling that I already know, or else it is right in front of me and I just can't see it. My best guess is that it's a dignified (any) planet ruling a benefic house.

Am I close? :smile:

[lillyjgc]

EA: You are asking what a functional benefic/malefic is, yeah?
I could be wrong, but my understanding of a functional benefic is a benefic that is not in any way impeded and can act to its highest positive capacity-eg Jupiter in Sag in an angle with no bad aspects and not retro-that sort of thing.
For a benefic to be able to work it cannot be impeded.
Same with malefic. A weak malefic in my experience though can act very badly..a malefic in full strength can ALSO act very badly-but in a more effective way.
I *think* that's what you're asking?
(hopefully Frank or olivia or Kai are around!)
Lilly

[eternalautumn]

Oh gosh.

Thank you, lilly. I think you are absolutely right.

Way for me to completely ***** up the meaning of functional in this context. Wow. I feel special. :sad:

[lillyjgc]

dys-FUNCTIONAL?:smile:

[eternalautumn]

A little. :tongue:

[Cosmiccradle]

I cannot figure out what this is. Google is no help. I have a feeling that I already know, or else it is right in front of me and I just can't see it. My best guess is that it's a dignified (any) planet ruling a benefic house.

Am I close? :smile:

Functional Benefic/Malefic , went through my works to see if I could find anything. It is a strange way of putting it taking into consideration that the expression Benefic/Malific already expresses an exsisting state. One could say a malefic/benefic is not present or is present, but to say it is functional or disfunctional would mean that other points in the chart overrule the benefic/malefic situation, which in that case would mean that one should not take it into account at all. It would be niether functional or disfunctional. As far as I'm concerned this is an incorrect use of terminology. I would be interested to hear how you came across the terminology, since in all my years I've never heard of it.

[eternalautumn]

Hmmm. I saw it quite a few places, I think. I'll have to look later. This post will remind me. :smile:

[Cosmiccradle]

Hmmm. I saw it quite a few places, I think. I'll have to look later. This post will remind me. :smile:

If you mean used in this sense....

http://yournetastrologer.com/faqpla.htm

then I would see it more as use of grammar than a special meaning. If the author does attach special meaning to it, I fail to see the the connection. As he says himself...

"The functional benefic planets, when strong and unafflicted in the natal chart, never cause any harm. There can be slight tension if during their sub periods there are some short lived transit afflictions. When the functional benefic planets are weak they are vulnerable go get harmed through the natal or transit afflictions caused by close conjunctions/aspects."

Which would mean as I have stated before the 'benefic/malefic' planet has less meaning because of its being overruled by other situations within the chart. The functionality points to the strength of the surronding circumstances and not the benefic/malefic as such.

[eternalautumn]

I think this is what I was thinking of:

The Accidental Dignity (http://www.auxmaillesgodefroy.com/accidental_dignity) can create an "accidental malefic". This would be the Lords of the Unfortunate Houses, Houses Six, Eight and Twelve. Being on an angle can add dignity or at least add the opportunity for the planet to act. Just as in life, people in good situations are more likely to assist others or at least provide a pleasant environment.
Any planet can act as a malefic if it has little or no essential dignity or is otherwise afflicted. Just as in life, people in difficult situations will act erratically and do things they would not normally do.
An aspect or conjunction to a benefic planet or the North node can harmonize benefic qualities, while an aspect or conjunction with a malefic planet or the South Node can increase the malefic qualities. A planet in the same sign and house can also have influence, the closer the planets are, the more influence.


http://www.auxmaillesgodefroy.com/benefic_and_malefic


Thank you for the help, CC. I knew what it was all along, just wasn't connecting the terms "functional benefic/malefic" with what I quoted... Argh. :smile:

[eternalautumn]

Thanks, Olivia. I was just reading about this in Morin, too. Haha. I guess I should hold off asking questions until I am sure I don't know or can't find the answer. Ugh.

As an example though, my natal Saturn is fast, direct, oriental, in Capricorn, in the 3rd. It rules 3rd and 4th. It is averted from Mars in the 4th, but square Sun, trine Mercury, and opposing Jupiter... If I'm right it at least has some functional beneficence, except for ruling the 4th... Am I on track?

[dhundhun]

I cannot figure out what this is. Google is no help. I have a feeling that I already know, or else it is right in front of me and I just can't see it. My best guess is that it's a dignified (any) planet ruling a benefic house.

Am I close? :smile:

I am not sure of Functional benefic or melefic in Western Astrology. But it is core of Vedic Astrology. You may refer to this URL http://www.mywebastrologer.com/knowyourplanet.asp (I don't agree with list in this but this serves as an example)

For example for Aries:
Functional melefics are Mercury, Rahu and Ketu.
and
Functional benefics are Sun, Moon, Mars, Jupiter, Venus and Saturn

While analyzing the effect of dasa (Vedic delineations) system, this concept plays a key role.

[Cosmiccradle]

Technically speaking, you're talking about turning a planet. Here's one definition that's good. If Venus or Jupiter is in detriment, fall, combust, or peregrine and retrograde, or besieged, or one of peregrine and retrograde and in unfortunate aspect to one of the malefics, and is in an unfortunate house, and rules an unfortunate house or houses, it becomes an accidental malefic.

The idea being that the planet's celestial and terrestrial states are both very bad. If one is bad, it still works somewhat benefically. If both are bad, then it's a functional malefic.

For a malefic to be a functional benefic, it would have to have to be in excellent state, both terrestrial and celestial. Dignified, not retrograde, not afflicted by the other malefic, succedent (don't want it angular as a rule), even cadent, and ruling a weak house - Mars in 6 ruling 6, or even in 3 where it's reasonably comfortable, or Saturn in 12 ruling 12, for instance, their joys - then it's a functional benefic. Saturn in 1 dignified and not retrograde or afflicted can help aid longevity, too, but you don't want it too close to the ascendant.

It won't hit the same status as a good Venus or Jupiter, but it will bring some modest good to the houses in question, and offer you some protection.

It's a lot easier to see than it is to read about.

I'm going to go over this with a fine tooth comb, when I've completely taken it in and broken it down I'll get back to you. I think dhundhun is pointing in the right direction by stating "I am not sure of Functional benefic or melefic in Western Astrology." Also I think that my original comment also holds some truth. However as you have stated reading it and seeing it are two different things.

[eternalautumn]

CC, yes you are right. I'm sorry. It is more of a grammar thing than anything else, it's just another way to say an essentially and/or accidentally dignified planet. I also could have seen it passing through links, and not noticed that it was in reference to Vedic astrology. For some reason, though, the term stuck in my mind, hence this thread. :smile:

[Cosmiccradle]

CC, yes you are right. I'm sorry. It is more of a grammar thing than anything else, it's just another way to say an essentially and/or accidentally dignified planet. I also could have seen it passing through links, and not noticed that it was in reference to Vedic astrology. For some reason, though, the term stuck in my mind, hence this thread. :smile:

Even so, I still question it's use. What does the terminology add to the interpertation or insight to the chart? Why not just say the Benefic is poorly placed, what we're looking at is a Benefic so placed that it has lost its original strength and qualities. This happens to all planets and luminaries. Yet in such situations we do not use extra terminology, or give special meaning or attention to them because they have lost their original strength and positive qualities. We take the placing as is, and interpert it accordingly.

Even if it is only fitting to use the terminology in Vedic astrology, it still boils down to the same thing. Or do we find ourselves in astrology complicating things, when we should be simplifying?

In closing, no need for sorry, let's face it...this type of thing stimulates the mind, forces one to search and learn, reason and motivate one's position. It caught my attention and made me think.

[eternalautumn]

I think the point is that even a malefic well-placed and dignified could "function" as a benefic in a particular chart. Say, Saturn in 4 Libra in the day in the 10th house. It would still have influence over the things of it's nature, but it's "functional beneficence" makes it less harmful to the native than in say in 21 Aries at night in the 6th. Does that make sense? I do agree with you, the terminology is slightly confusing, but it makes sense to me...

Yes, it definitely did make me think... :smile: I was only apologizing because I didn't want you to think I was ignoring your points in the thread.

[Cosmiccradle]

I think the point is that even a malefic well-placed and dignified could "function" as a benefic in a particular chart. Say, Saturn in 4 Libra in the day in the 10th house. It would still have influence over the things of it's nature, but it's "functional beneficence" makes it less harmful to the native than in say in 21 Aries at night in the 6th. Does that make sense? I do agree with you, the terminology is slightly confusing, but it makes sense to me...

Yes, it definitely did make me think... :smile: I was only apologizing because I didn't want you to think I was ignoring your points in the thread.

:lol: POINT taken. Thanks for the reply. I will certainly take the whole thread and all views with me.

[eternalautumn]

Me too. :smile: I'd love to hear further from you on it if you are still researching it...

[Cosmiccradle]

Me too. :smile: I'd love to hear further from you on it if you are still researching it...

I'll be sure to knock on your door. A tip of the hat to your quote!

[Cosmiccradle]

It is my turn to apoligize, it seems that it is not only a very important way of looking at the chart, but also the correct terminology.

It boils down to a very extensive use of Dignities attatched to the Ascendant. It is so extensive that I am sorry to say I do not have the time to look into it. Not only that I find that having to take part of the VEDIC astrology and only read that part of it, is not realistic. To fully understand part, one must thoroughly understand the whole. However I have found several good sites that explain it as best as it can be explained, if you wish to further the VEDIC astrology and the use of the terminology.

It is interesting enough, I do agree that using the Ascendant as a Most Effective Point for each house is worth looking into. When I have some free time I will certainly look into it.

http://www.iipa.net/systems.htm

http://www.iipa.net/Articles/when_good_planets_go_bad.htm

http://www.astromitra.com/Functional_Malefic_Benefic_Planets.php

[eternalautumn]

Interesting. I never doubted that it was accurate for Vedic astrology, I was just under the mistaken impression that I had seen it in Western, too. Vedic is my next project, ironically (and hopefully that will start soon), as I've always had an interest in Indian culture and finding out that they had their own system of astrology made me very excited!

Funny, too, that I had heard of using the Ascendant degree as the cusp for each house in the Whole Sign system. Someone on another forum mentioned that the Greeks may have done this, and some people think the Greeks brought astrology to India... However I have also been playing around with the idea of using Regiomontanus (or any quadrant system) cusps as the true "cusps" of Whole Sign houses... This is all very very interesting, and I'll have to remember this thread when I start my studies in Vedic astrology. Thank you, CC! :smile:

[dhundhun]

It is my turn to apoligize, it seems that it is not only a very important way of looking at the chart, but also the correct terminology.

It boils down to a very extensive use of Dignities attatched to the Ascendant. It is so extensive that I am sorry to say I do not have the time to look into it. Not only that I find that having to take part of the VEDIC astrology and only read that part of it, is not realistic. To fully understand part, one must thoroughly understand the whole. However I have found several good sites that explain it as best as it can be explained, if you wish to further the VEDIC astrology and the use of the terminology.

It is interesting enough, I do agree that using the Ascendant as a Most Effective Point for each house is worth looking into. When I have some free time I will certainly look into it.

http://www.iipa.net/systems.htm

http://www.iipa.net/Articles/when_good_planets_go_bad.htm

http://www.astromitra.com/Functional_Malefic_Benefic_Planets.php

When an Vedic astrologer starts analyzing charts, looks at Moon and Asc. Then starts analyzing based on various strengths/weaknesses. Functional Benefic/Malefic comes almost first, before a scores of other things for strengths/weakness.

Ironically WIKI (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jyotish) has totally missed this point. Concepts of Vedic Astrology is not well communicated to rest of world - usually that learning comes through GURU; so wiki, web, books, literature miss so many points.

I hope that these endeavors would make it possible to better document Vedic Astrology. Thanks Cosmiccradle and eternalautumn for going in details.

[Cosmiccradle]

Interesting. I never doubted that it was accurate for Vedic astrology, I was just under the mistaken impression that I had seen it in Western, too. Vedic is my next project, ironically (and hopefully that will start soon), as I've always had an interest in Indian culture and finding out that they had their own system of astrology made me very excited!

Funny, too, that I had heard of using the Ascendant degree as the cusp for each house in the Whole Sign system. Someone on another forum mentioned that the Greeks may have done this, and some people think the Greeks brought astrology to India... However I have also been playing around with the idea of using Regiomontanus (or any quadrant system) cusps as the true "cusps" of Whole Sign houses... This is all very very interesting, and I'll have to remember this thread when I start my studies in Vedic astrology. Thank you, CC! :smile:

Agreed, very interesting, however to do it justice alot of time and learning would have to go into it. I have always found that the Ascendant should carry more weight to it, so in that matter I'm glad I came across this little jewel. It is not the first time I've seen the Ascendant play a larger roll, Volguine also gave extra meaning to each planet in relation to the Ascendant. To this I'm in full agreement. That a benefic can become a malefic is also something I'm in agreement with. But how it becomes a malefic is something else. In the western astrology, it is seen as a Benefic losing its strength through placement, but it still remains a Benefic. That is not so in the Vedic astrology. Also I've never been too happy with the doom thinking of the 6th, 8th and 12th. I tend to lean towards the Humanistic thinking when it comes to those houses.

As for house systems, pity that all if not most programs limit themselves to the usual house systems, I like and will always find the best system to be Haly Abenragel. It's uniqueness gives way to expressing the house areas as original periods and areas in the chart.

[Pallas-trine-Mars]

Functional Malefic and Benefic are Vedic concepts, and they're very basic:

1. The ruler of the sign immediately before one sign (its 12th house) and the signs five signs away (its 6th house and 8th house) are Functional Malefics.

1a. The Moola Trikona of a sign must be considered since Vedic clings to the traditional rulers but still considers each planet to have a preferential house. In the cases of Mercury and Venus theirs are the ones where they're considered in their own sign while the Sun is in Leo, Saturn's is Aquarius I believe due to his enmity with the Sun and Aquarius being farther from Leo and possibly because it's a masculine sign (though I think Saturn is considered genderless in Vedic so I could be wrong). For some reason the Moon's is Taurus, don't know why. An interesting occurrence about this means that Venus is Functional Malefic for Taurus, Mars for Scorpio, even Jupiter for Cancer.

The MTs are: Moon-Taurus, Sun-Leo, Mercury-Virgo, Venus-Libra, Mars-Aries, Jupiter-Sagittarius and Saturn-Aquarius. Moola Trikona might or might not be able to work with modern planetary rulers if we can find their Moola Trikonae.

2. The Lunar nodes are always Functional Malefics.

3. Anything else is a Functional Benefic.

Another interesting thing is that Gemini becomes the only sign with no Functional Malefic planet.

Yahoo! Answers later at night often has some Vedic astrologer who know more about this stuff than me.

I would also say that generally a sign isn't very compatible with the ruling planet of the signs that form right angles to its own sign, ex: Sun with Taurus or Scorpio.