Guest guest Posted January 14, 2001 Report Share Posted January 14, 2001 Dear Members, I know I said I would not debate this issue further, however I feel an explanation is needed as to why this controversy even exists when Astrologers on both sides of the fence base their judgements on the teachings of Parashara. The problem lies not in the teaching of Parashara but in the "interpretation" of his teaching. This basic problem exists in all "Divine treatises". For instance the Bhagavad-Gita (Hindu Bible) is the reference point of both the Personalists (HK) and the Transcendentalists . The Christian Bible is the reference point of both the Roman Catholics and the Born Again Christians. Yet it seems that each of these groups are quoting from different sources as their interpretation is completely different. The problem is "we all see through different eyes"...this is where the guidance of an enlightened teacher (Guru) is extremely valuable as he (supposedly) sees with "clear eyes". When Parashara speaks of aspects in his guidelines to the effects of certain planets in particular houses, he doesn't differentiate between opposition (etc) or conjunction. However when (as Das already mentioned) speaking directly of the aspects for each planet, no aspect is specified for the nodes. I find it difficult to believe that Parashara would neglect to mention something as important as that. The problem (as I see it) is not with Parashara but with otherwise people's interpretation of the scriptures. Regards Wendy Learn Vedic Astrology http://welcome.to/Vedic Astrology Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 15, 2001 Report Share Posted January 15, 2001 Dear Wendy, > When Parashara speaks of aspects in his guidelines to the effects of certain > planets in particular houses, he doesn't differentiate between opposition > (etc) or conjunction. However when (as Das already mentioned) speaking > directly of the aspects for each planet, no aspect is specified for the > nodes. I find it difficult to believe that Parashara would neglect to > mention something as important as that. > The problem (as I see it) is not with Parashara but with otherwise people's > interpretation of the scriptures. At the very beginning, Parashara speaks of rasi dristis, yet very few astrologers use them in interpretation. He even mentions rashi dristes much before than graha dristis.Very few traditional astrologers again, use precise quantum of graha dristis as given in Parashara. What about arudhas or other aspects of Brihat Parashara Hora Shastra, such as argalas etc.. At TM movement jyotish courses, it is taught that both rahu and ketu have 5/9 graha dristis, and as you know, Siebelt Mayer is said to hold Parashara's view as strictly as possible. My opinion is that rahu has graha dristis, while Ketu as a headless trunk with no eyes cannot cast graha dristis As far as divisional charts are concerned, graha dristis would have no logical foundation, due to non-existence of longitudinal distance, while rasi dristi have logical basis. There are many instances in Parashara where dristis in divisional charts are mantioned. In any case, we all folow our own logic, and to me, it sounds perfectly logical to use all the rules suggested in classical jyotisha texts, such as Parashara, Jaimini etc. Best wishes, Zoran Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 15, 2001 Report Share Posted January 15, 2001 Zoran, The simple fact of the matter is that no aspects for Rahu/Ketu are given in any of the classical texts. There is no "rule" to be found anywhere, in any of the texts that states Rahu/Ketu give 5/9 aspects. This "rule" simply does not exist Zoran, let's (at least) try to be honest in what we say. And (once again) Zoran the subject is "planetary" aspect, NOT "sign" aspect. You must try to stick to the issue...the waters are muddy enough as it is! Again, regarding Siebelt Mayer; this is not the first time you've contradicted me in regards to MJ teachings...last time (after lengthy phone calls) I verified that what I'D BEEN TAUGHT was correct...I shall make the same lengthy phone calls again today to verify or deny this latest contradiction. I understand your need to put forward any argument you can in support of your "belief" Zoran, but let's be honest and make it known that this is YOUR BELIEF (your assumption)...it is not based on a "rule" of Parashara that states Rahu/Ketu have 5/9 aspect because no such rule exists...let's be clear on this! I have (contrary to Robert's insinuation) read ALL the classical literature and there is no such "rule* to be found anywhere. We can all make mistakes in the way we understand things Zoran, none of us are infallible, but we must always try to be sincere and not deliberately twist the truth in support of our argument. The very simple facts are: 1. In all the classical texts the "rule" for planetary aspects from SU through to SA are clearly given...therefore there can be no mistake, no misinterpretation is possible. 2. In all the classical texts there is no such "rule" given for Rahu/Ketu...could this have been an oversight? or could it be that they don't have any aspects!! Make no mistake about it Zoran, if Rahu/Ketu had the same aspects as JU that rule would have been given in Parasara...just as the "rule" for all the other planetary aspects are. We were not left to make up our own minds with the other planets, it was made perfectly clear...why would the Rishi's leave us to make up our own minds in regards to Rahu/Ketu. Of course being free to decide for ourselves the aspects of RA/KE puts to rest the notion that your particular brand of Jyotish is based upon the "rules" of Parashara...it's perfectly clear that it's based upon the "rules" of Zoran. That's fine Zoran, you're free to do that, but please don't put forward the false assumption that it's based on Parashara. Wendy At the very beginning, Parashara speaks of rasi dristis, yet very few astrologers use them in interpretation. He even mentions rashi dristes much before than graha dristis.Very few traditional astrologers again, use precise quantum of graha dristis as given in Parashara. What about arudhas or other aspects of Brihat Parashara Hora Shastra, such as argalas etc.. At TM movement jyotish courses, it is taught that both rahu and ketu have 5/9 graha dristis, and as you know, Siebelt Mayer is said to hold Parashara's view as strictly as possible. My opinion is that rahu has graha dristis, while Ketu as a headless trunk with no eyes cannot cast graha dristis As far as divisional charts are concerned, graha dristis would have no logical foundation, due to non-existence of longitudinal distance, while rasi dristi have logical basis. There are many instances in Parashara where dristis in divisional charts are mantioned. In any case, we all folow our own logic, and to me, it sounds perfectly logical to use all the rules suggested in classical jyotisha texts, such as Parashara, Jaimini etc. Best wishes, Zoran gjlist- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 15, 2001 Report Share Posted January 15, 2001 Dear Wendy, > The simple fact of the matter is that no aspects for Rahu/Ketu are given in > any of the classical texts. There is no "rule" to be found anywhere, in any > of the texts that states Rahu/Ketu give 5/9 aspects. This "rule" simply does > not exist Zoran, let's (at least) try to be honest in what we say. > There is no rule for 5/9 aspects, and I never said that there was. There are shlokas in Parashara where it is said that Rahu aspects some places in the chart, for example 12th/7th from Arudha Lagna, and you may read it in Parashara. It has not been stated whether it is rashi or graha aspect.... > Again, regarding Siebelt Mayer; this is not the first time you've > contradicted me in regards to MJ teachings...last time (after lengthy phone > calls) I verified that what I'D BEEN TAUGHT was correct...I shall make the > same lengthy phone calls again today to verify or deny this latest > contradiction. > I am sorry but I was taught differently at MJ course, only two begginers courses. You may deny this, but I have a note book, with examples of Rahu/ketu aspects when Siebelt Mayer analyesed sample charts. If there are contradictions they should be settled within MJyotish department. > Of course being free to decide for ourselves the aspects of RA/KE puts to > rest the notion that your particular brand of Jyotish is based upon the > "rules" of Parashara...it's perfectly clear that it's based upon the "rules" > of Zoran. > Then Wendy, please kindly explain some shlokas where Parashara clearly mentioned aspects of Rahu. I am not insinuating, but I simply cannot understand why it would be mentioned, if rahu/ketu aspects were omitted when dealing with aspectual evaluations. It is true that rahu and ketu's aspects were not clearly stated, but it is also true that they were mentioned in some shlokas as well, as Robert mentioned in one of previous emails. Best regards, Zoran P.S. I can hardly understand the harsh tone whenever you are opposed. We are opposing each other for the sake of better understanding of jyotisha. In that sense,generally I will not in future respond to any email intended us such. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 16, 2001 Report Share Posted January 16, 2001 Hi Zoran, Nice to see you after a long while. I have been watching this ongoing discussion on nodal aspects. Yes, 5/9 aspects of nodes are taken, but then many exclude Ketu out of it. Especially for aspects, I dont take any aspects of nodes. In Shadbala, the relevant part, Drishti Bala does not take nodes into account. And that method has also been prescribed by Parashara. regards, Manoj >ahimsa >gjlist >gjlist >Re: [gjlist] Parashara >Mon, 15 Jan 2001 10:29:06 +0100 > >Dear Wendy, > > > When Parashara speaks of aspects in his guidelines to the effects of >certain > > planets in particular houses, he doesn't differentiate between >opposition > > (etc) or conjunction. However when (as Das already mentioned) speaking > > directly of the aspects for each planet, no aspect is specified for the > > nodes. I find it difficult to believe that Parashara would neglect to > > mention something as important as that. > > The problem (as I see it) is not with Parashara but with otherwise >people's > > interpretation of the scriptures. > >At the very beginning, Parashara speaks of rasi dristis, yet very few >astrologers >use them in interpretation. He even mentions rashi dristes much before than >graha dristis.Very few traditional astrologers again, use precise quantum >of >graha dristis as given in Parashara. What about arudhas or other aspects >of Brihat Parashara Hora Shastra, such as argalas etc.. >At TM movement jyotish courses, it is taught that both rahu and ketu >have 5/9 graha dristis, and as you know, Siebelt Mayer is said to hold >Parashara's view as strictly as possible. My opinion is that rahu has graha >dristis, while Ketu as a headless trunk with no eyes cannot cast graha >dristis >As far as divisional charts are concerned, graha dristis would have no >logical >foundation, due to non-existence of longitudinal distance, while rasi >dristi >have logical basis. There are many instances in Parashara where dristis >in divisional charts are mantioned. In any case, we all folow our own >logic, >and to me, it sounds perfectly logical to use all the rules suggested in >classical >jyotisha texts, such as Parashara, Jaimini etc. >Best wishes, >Zoran > > > > > >gjlist- > > > _______________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 16, 2001 Report Share Posted January 16, 2001 Hello Zoran, >I can hardly understand the harsh tone whenever you are opposed. We are >opposing each other for the sake of better understanding of jyotisha. In >that sense,generally I will not in future respond to any email intended us >such.> Well said, as discussion only leads one to newer and unexplored vistas and should not be stopped at any moment but it should simultaneously not be allowed to turn personal. Lets keep up the spirit of JYOTISH, the illuminated ones. with best regards Manoj _______________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.