Same degree placement in D1 is not a connection .

 Some modern astrologers maintain that planets occupying the same numerical degree in different signs are inherently related or connected. However, this idea finds no explicit support in the classical texts of Jyotiṣa or other traditional astrological authorities. The classics emphasise relationships through aspects (dṛṣṭi), conjunctions (yuti), house placements (bhāva), and divisional charts (varga), but they do not mention any principle of "degree resonance" across signs.

Elaboration

Classical Frameworks of Relationship

Yuti (Conjunction): Planets in the same sign and close degrees are considered conjoined.

Dṛṣṭi (Aspect): Planets influence each other through defined angular relationships (e.g., opposition, trine, square in Western astrology; special aspects in Vedic).

Bhāva (House): Planets in the same house interact by sharing the same domain of life.

Varga (Divisional Charts): Fine-tuned relationships are studied through harmonic divisions like Navāṁśa, Daśāṁśa, etc.

The Modern Hypothesis

Some contemporary astrologers suggest that planets at the same degree (say, 15°) in different signs share a hidden resonance, almost like being on the same "frequency."

This is sometimes compared to numerological or harmonic theories, but it is not rooted in Bṛhat Parāśara Horā Śāstra, Jātaka Pārijāta, or other authoritative Sanskrit treatises.

Critical Evaluation

Without textual sanction, such theories remain speculative.

They may appeal to modern symbolic or psychological astrology, but they lack the operational clarity and scriptural authority that classical Jyotiṣa demands.

In practice, resonance across signs is already addressed through divisional charts (e.g., two planets at the same degree may fall in the same Navāṁśa, which is a classical principle).

Polished Conclusion

The notion that planets at identical degrees across different signs are inherently related is a modern extrapolation, not a classical doctrine. Traditional astrology recognises planetary relationships through conjunctions, aspects, houses, and vargas—not through mere numerical coincidence of degrees. If one wishes to explore "degree resonance," it should be framed as a contemporary innovation rather than a classical principle.

It is often observed in practice that when two planets share the same numerical degree, they may show some form of linkage in the navāṁśa or other divisional charts—whether through sign exchange, mutual dispositorship, or trinal connection. This commonality arises because divisional charts redistribute planetary positions in subtle ways, creating fresh relational patterns.

However, this should not be mistaken as proof that “same degree placement” in the D1 chart itself carries inherent meaning. Classical texts do not assign any special significance to planets merely sharing the same degree across different signs. What truly matters in divisional charts is sign placement and lordship, not bhāvas (since divisions do not have houses in the same sense as the D1).Thus:

Same degree in D1 → no classical principle of inherent connection.

Connections in divisional charts → valid, but they arise from sign-based relationships and lordship, not from degree coincidence.

C-varga lordship → a distinct and legitimate subject, independent of the idea of “same degree resonance.”

This way, the emphasis is clear: divisional charts operate through signs and lords, not houses, and the “same degree” idea is a modern extrapolation rather than a classical doctrine.