11H - income and fulfilment of desires
2H - gains, addition to our life , ashta Nidhi (8 kinds of wealth )
People with positive 11H and 2H generally gets things easily. Health is not always guaranteed 🍀
#Astro
#Wealth
More from Twinkle
Exactly . It’s called Jeevan Mukta amsa . The reason why people should worship the lord indicated by this house only when they are ready to face the challenges to clear their karma. Else don’t be a superman 🌚🎃
12th house from Atmakarka shows our spiritual inclination, themes of our soul's journey and challenges to attain liberation through atmakarka planet.
— \U0001f940\U0001d468\U0001d482\U0001d485\U0001d48a \U0001d477\U0001d482\U0001d493\U0001d482\U0001d494\U0001d489\U0001d482\U0001d48c\U0001d495\U0001d48a\U0001f531 (@AdiParashaktiA) March 15, 2022
More from Astro
You May Also Like
This is a pretty valiant attempt to defend the "Feminist Glaciology" article, which says conventional wisdom is wrong, and this is a solid piece of scholarship. I'll beg to differ, because I think Jeffery, here, is confusing scholarship with "saying things that seem right".
The article is, at heart, deeply weird, even essentialist. Here, for example, is the claim that proposing climate engineering is a "man" thing. Also a "man" thing: attempting to get distance from a topic, approaching it in a disinterested fashion.
Also a "man" thing—physical courage. (I guess, not quite: physical courage "co-constitutes" masculinist glaciology along with nationalism and colonialism.)
There's criticism of a New York Times article that talks about glaciology adventures, which makes a similar point.
At the heart of this chunk is the claim that glaciology excludes women because of a narrative of scientific objectivity and physical adventure. This is a strong claim! It's not enough to say, hey, sure, sounds good. Is it true?
Imagine for a moment the most obscurantist, jargon-filled, po-mo article the politically correct academy might produce. Pure SJW nonsense. Got it? Chances are you're imagining something like the infamous "Feminist Glaciology" article from a few years back.https://t.co/NRaWNREBvR pic.twitter.com/qtSFBYY80S
— Jeffrey Sachs (@JeffreyASachs) October 13, 2018
The article is, at heart, deeply weird, even essentialist. Here, for example, is the claim that proposing climate engineering is a "man" thing. Also a "man" thing: attempting to get distance from a topic, approaching it in a disinterested fashion.
Also a "man" thing—physical courage. (I guess, not quite: physical courage "co-constitutes" masculinist glaciology along with nationalism and colonialism.)
There's criticism of a New York Times article that talks about glaciology adventures, which makes a similar point.
At the heart of this chunk is the claim that glaciology excludes women because of a narrative of scientific objectivity and physical adventure. This is a strong claim! It's not enough to say, hey, sure, sounds good. Is it true?