Parashari-Jaimini ! (to Vijay)

[Guest guest]

Dear Mr. Narsimha,

 

Not only for you but for everybody does the knowledge-base of BPHS matters. You

should not use such sarcasm on Parashara's BPHS that it does not matter to

you. We should be proud of our ancestors for having given a wonderful wealth of

knowledge.

 

As far as the amalgamation of various techniques is under question, one is free

to use any technique anywhere whether or not it has the approval of the

classics. It is a good approach and it develops us beyound the texts. However,

while doing such usage, a clear statistical analysis should be done for the

percentage of success rate, which sometimes is not done.

 

>From my side, this topic stands closed unless you want to keep it alive.

 

Thanks and Regards,

 

Vijay Kumar

-

Narasimha P.V.R. Rao

vedic astrology

Friday, December 19, 2003 12:12 PM

[vedic astrology] Re: Parashari-Jaimini ! (to Vijay)

Namaste Vijay,

 

> The classics after Parashara did stick to the conventional planetary

> aspects, fixed karakas, Vim dasha etc and did not venture on the

> other side so it became evitable to the general mass of people that

> Parashari astrology is limited to it. Can you modify those hundereds

> of classical texts after Parashara and include chapters of Jaimini

> styled delineations because Parashara did in BPHS or you like to

> see them the way you want ? You can't and you have to accept it.

 

Why should I modify all those texts? Those texts do not matter to me.

 

Parasara wrote a masterpiece called BPHS. That is my guiding light, when it

comes to finding "one single approach" that Parasara recommended. If you say

that "Parasari system" is not defined based on Parasara's own teachings, but

based on the teachings some later day authors, that is the most illogical thing

to say.

 

Moreover, the Parasari vs Jaimini distinction is an invention of modern authors

of the last couple of centuries.

 

* * *

 

BTW, it will help if you clarify one thing. Do you agree with using the

so-called Jaimini techniques such as sign aspects, arudhas, chara karakas, when

interpreting Vimsottari dasa (the so-called Parasari system dasa)? If you do,

then we can call off this discussion. By your phrase "not simultaneously

recognising", you made me think that you do not approve this. Please clarify.

 

May Jupiter's light shine on us,Narasimha

Archives: vedic astrologyGroup info:

vedic astrology/info.htmlTo UNSUBSCRIBE: Blank

mail to vedic astrology-....... May Jupiter's light

shine on us ....... To visit your group on the web, go

to:vedic astrology/ To from this

group, send an email to:vedic astrology Your use

of is subject to the

[Guest guest]

Dear Mr. Narsimha,

 

Sorry, by oversight, I have remarked on BPHS. I realised that you had meant for

the other works other than BPHS, I realised soon after I posted the mail.

Please ignore it and forgive me for this mistake.

 

Although, whatever is said may be taken for the other texts as well. The

knowledge of various texts after BPHS are additive to it and ignoring them is

not right.

 

Anyway, sorry for the mistake.

 

Regards,

 

Vijay Kumar

-

Narasimha P.V.R. Rao

vedic astrology

Friday, December 19, 2003 12:12 PM

[vedic astrology] Re: Parashari-Jaimini ! (to Vijay)

Namaste Vijay,

 

> The classics after Parashara did stick to the conventional planetary

> aspects, fixed karakas, Vim dasha etc and did not venture on the

> other side so it became evitable to the general mass of people that

> Parashari astrology is limited to it. Can you modify those hundereds

> of classical texts after Parashara and include chapters of Jaimini

> styled delineations because Parashara did in BPHS or you like to

> see them the way you want ? You can't and you have to accept it.

 

Why should I modify all those texts? Those texts do not matter to me.

 

Parasara wrote a masterpiece called BPHS. That is my guiding light, when it

comes to finding "one single approach" that Parasara recommended. If you say

that "Parasari system" is not defined based on Parasara's own teachings, but

based on the teachings some later day authors, that is the most illogical thing

to say.

 

Moreover, the Parasari vs Jaimini distinction is an invention of modern authors

of the last couple of centuries.

 

* * *

 

BTW, it will help if you clarify one thing. Do you agree with using the

so-called Jaimini techniques such as sign aspects, arudhas, chara karakas, when

interpreting Vimsottari dasa (the so-called Parasari system dasa)? If you do,

then we can call off this discussion. By your phrase "not simultaneously

recognising", you made me think that you do not approve this. Please clarify.

 

May Jupiter's light shine on us,Narasimha

Archives: vedic astrologyGroup info:

vedic astrology/info.htmlTo UNSUBSCRIBE: Blank

mail to vedic astrology-....... May Jupiter's light

shine on us ....... To visit your group on the web, go

to:vedic astrology/ To from this

group, send an email to:vedic astrology Your use

of is subject to the

[Guest guest]

Dear Narasimha,Vijay Kumar, Anna,

If I may be so bold as to interject, is it not a fact that Jyotish is a Vedanga

and not restricted to only Parashara or Jaimini? There are said to be 18

Pravartakas (Parashara being one of them) and numerous Acharyas(Jaimini being

one amongst them) who gave Jyotish as understood by us in form of lectures

which are now reduced to texts. Most of the Acharyas of later days have drawn

heavily on all available material to give us classics like

Saravali,Jatakaparijaata, Phaladeepika and many others. Therefore limiting the

basics of Astrology to any one of the Pravartakas or Acharyas, as we do not

have access to works of others like Romesh, Paulesh, Chyavana, Narada et al may

not help Jyotish much. If I have hurt anyone on account of my views, I beg their

pardon in advance.

Regards,

Chandrashekhar.

pvr108 [pvr (AT) charter (DOT) net]Friday,

December 19, 2003 9:55 PMvedic astrologySubject:

[vedic astrology] Re: Parashari-Jaimini ! (to Vijay)Namaste Mr. Vijay Kumar,>

Dear Mr. Narsimha,> > Not only for you but for everybody does the

knowledge-base> of BPHS matters. You should not use such sarcasm on

Parashara's> BPHS that it does not matter to you. We should be proud of> our

ancestors for having given a wonderful wealth of knowledge. You are

misrepresenting me and so I have clarify.There is no sarcasm.Secondly, I did

not suggesting ignoring other authors altogether.What I meant is that those

texts do not matter to me as far asdefining what consitutes "Parasari system"

is concerned.My point is simple. IF one wants to define something

called"Parasari system", it MUST be defined based on what Parasarahimself

taught. And not based on what some other authors taught.This is neither an

insult to others nor sarcasm.This is simple commonsense.> As far as the

amalgamation of various techniques is under question, one is free to use any

technique anywhere whether or not it has the approval of the classics. It is a

good approach and it develops us beyound the texts. However, while doing such

usage, a clear statistical analysis should be done for the percentage of

success rate, which sometimes is not done.> > From my side, this topic stands

closed unless you want to keep it alive.> > Thanks and Regards,> > Vijay

KumarThank you for the clarification. The topic stands closed for me too.For

the impressionable young minds on the list, I state once again:The

classification of Parasari vs Jaimini is a later day creation.What Mr. Vijay

Kumar defined is "Parasari system" is only a smallpart of the teachings of

Parasara himself. People read later dayauthors and they think they understood

Parasara. This is sad.May Jupiter's light shine on us,NarasimhaArchives:

vedic astrologyGroup info:

vedic astrology/info.htmlTo UNSUBSCRIBE: Blank

mail to vedic astrology-....... May Jupiter's light

shine on us ....... To visit your group on the web, go

to:vedic astrology/ To from this

group, send an email to:vedic astrology Your use

of is subject to the

[Guest guest]

I agree with you, and dispassionate manner you stated the fact is just right. I

couldn't understand why the 'hot temper' was rising so high-just that. No

problem, I guess we all get 'hot' sometimes -:)Best wishes,

AnnaChandrashekhar Sharma <boxdel (AT) (DOT) co.uk> wrote:

Dear Narasimha,Vijay Kumar, Anna,

If I may be so bold as to interject, is it not a fact that Jyotish is a Vedanga

and not restricted to only Parashara or Jaimini? There are said to be 18

Pravartakas (Parashara being one of them) and numerous Acharyas(Jaimini being

one amongst them) who gave Jyotish as understood by us in form of lectures

which are now reduced to texts. Most of the Acharyas of later days have drawn

heavily on all available material to give us classics like

Saravali,Jatakaparijaata, Phaladeepika and many others. Therefore limiting the

basics of Astrology to any one of the Pravartakas or Acharyas, as we do not

have access to works of others like Romesh, Paulesh, Chyavana, Narada et al may

not help Jyotish much. If I have hurt anyone on account of my views, I beg their

pardon in advance.

Regards,

Chandrashekhar.

pvr108 [pvr (AT) charter (DOT) net]Friday,

December 19, 2003 9:55 PMvedic astrologySubject:

[vedic astrology] Re: Parashari-Jaimini ! (to Vijay)Namaste Mr. Vijay Kumar,>

Dear Mr. Narsimha,> > Not only for you but for everybody does the

knowledge-base> of BPHS matters. You should not use such sarcasm on

Parashara's> BPHS that it does not matter to you. We should be proud of> our

ancestors for having given a wonderful wealth of knowledge. You are

misrepresenting me and so I have clarify.There is no sarcasm.Secondly, I did

not suggesting ignoring other authors altogether.What I meant is that those

texts do not matter to me as far asdefining what consitutes "Parasari system"

is concerned.My point

is simple. IF one wants to define something called"Parasari system", it MUST be

defined based on what Parasarahimself taught. And not based on what some other

authors taught.This is neither an insult to others nor sarcasm.This is simple

commonsense.> As far as the amalgamation of various techniques is under

question, one is free to use any technique anywhere whether or not it has the

approval of the classics. It is a good approach and it develops us beyound the

texts. However, while doing such usage, a clear statistical analysis should be

done for the percentage of success rate, which sometimes is not done.> > From

my side, this topic stands closed unless you want to keep it alive.> > Thanks

and Regards,> > Vijay KumarThank you for the clarification. The topic stands

closed for me too.For the impressionable young minds on the list, I state once

again:The classification of Parasari vs Jaimini is a later day creation.What Mr.

Vijay Kumar defined is "Parasari system" is only a smallpart of the teachings of

Parasara himself. People read later dayauthors and they think they understood

Parasara. This is sad.May Jupiter's light shine on us,NarasimhaArchives:

vedic astrologyGroup info:

vedic astrology/info.htmlTo UNSUBSCRIBE: Blank

mail to vedic astrology-....... May Jupiter's light

shine on us ....... To visit your group on the web, go

to:vedic astrology/ To from this

group, send an email to:vedic astrology Your use

of is subject to the Archives:

vedic astrologyGroup info:

vedic astrology/info.htmlTo UNSUBSCRIBE: Blank

mail to vedic astrology-....... May Jupiter's light

shine on us ....... To visit your group on the web, go

to:vedic astrology/ To from this

group, send an email to:vedic astrology Your use

of is subject to the

 

 

New Photos - easier uploading and sharing

[Guest guest]

OM NAMO NARAYANAYA

Dear Chandrashekhar Ji,

You have correctly said about Jyotishya Pravartakas.There are 20 Jyotishya

Pravartakas namely

BRAHMA,NARADA,VYASA,VASISHTA,ATRI,PARASHARA,ROMASHA,YAVANA,SURYA,BHRUGU,CHYAVANA,KASHYAPA,

PULASTYA,MANU,ACHARYA,PAULISHA,SHAUNAKA,ANGIARASSSU,GARGA AND MARICHI.

NARADAYA TATHAA BRAHMAA SHAUNAKAAYA SUDHAKARAH.

MAANDAVYA VAAMADEVAABHYAAM VASISHTO YATPURAATANAM.

Lord Brahma taught this Jyotish Shastra to Narada,Chandra to Shaunaka,and

Vasishta to Mandavya and Vaamadeva.

NARAYANAO VASISHTAAYA ROMASHAAYAAPI CHOKTAVAAN.

VYAASAH SHISHYAYA SURYOPI MAYASURAKRUTE SPHUTAM.

Lord Narayana gave teachings on this Divine Jyotish Shastra to Vasishta,Vyasa to

Romasha,and Surya to Mayasura.

I hope this helps all.

With Shri Hari Vaayu Naama Smarana,

Ramadas Rao.

 

Chandrashekhar Sharma

[boxdel (AT) (DOT) co.uk]Friday, December 19, 2003 10:53 PMTo:

vedic astrologySubject: RE: [vedic astrology] Re:

Parashari-Jaimini ! (to Vijay)

Dear Narasimha,Vijay Kumar, Anna,

If I may be so bold as to interject, is it not a fact that Jyotish is a Vedanga

and not restricted to only Parashara or Jaimini? There are said to be 18

Pravartakas (Parashara being one of them) and numerous Acharyas(Jaimini being

one amongst them) who gave Jyotish as understood by us in form of lectures

which are now reduced to texts. Most of the Acharyas of later days have drawn

heavily on all available material to give us classics like

Saravali,Jatakaparijaata, Phaladeepika and many others. Therefore limiting the

basics of Astrology to any one of the Pravartakas or Acharyas, as we do not

have access to works of others like Romesh, Paulesh, Chyavana, Narada et al may

not help Jyotish much. If I have hurt anyone on account of my views, I beg their

pardon in advance.

Regards,

Chandrashekhar.

pvr108 [pvr (AT) charter (DOT) net]Friday,

December 19, 2003 9:55 PMvedic astrologySubject:

[vedic astrology] Re: Parashari-Jaimini ! (to Vijay)Namaste Mr. Vijay Kumar,>

Dear Mr. Narsimha,> > Not only for you but for everybody does the

knowledge-base> of BPHS matters. You should not use such sarcasm on

Parashara's> BPHS that it does not matter to you. We should be proud of> our

ancestors for having given a wonderful wealth of knowledge. You are

misrepresenting me and so I have clarify.There is no sarcasm.Secondly, I did

not suggesting ignoring other authors altogether.What I meant is that those

texts do not matter to me as far asdefining what consitutes "Parasari system"

is concerned.My point is simple. IF one wants to define something

called"Parasari system", it MUST be defined based on what Parasarahimself

taught. And not based on what some other authors taught.This is neither an

insult to others nor sarcasm.This is simple commonsense.> As far as the

amalgamation of various techniques is under question, one is free to use any

technique anywhere whether or not it has the approval of the classics. It is a

good approach and it develops us beyound the texts. However, while doing such

usage, a clear statistical analysis should be done for the percentage of

success rate, which sometimes is not done.> > From my side, this topic stands

closed unless you want to keep it alive.> > Thanks and Regards,> > Vijay

KumarThank you for the clarification. The topic stands closed for me too.For

the impressionable young minds on the list, I state once again:The

classification of Parasari vs Jaimini is a later day creation.What Mr. Vijay

Kumar defined is "Parasari system" is only a smallpart of the teachings of

Parasara himself. People read later dayauthors and they think they understood

Parasara. This is sad.May Jupiter's light shine on us,NarasimhaArchives:

vedic astrologyGroup info:

vedic astrology/info.htmlTo UNSUBSCRIBE: Blank

mail to vedic astrology-....... May Jupiter's light

shine on us ....... To visit your group on the web, go

to:vedic astrology/ To from this

group, send an email to:vedic astrology Your use

of is subject to the Archives:

vedic astrologyGroup info:

vedic astrology/info.htmlTo UNSUBSCRIBE: Blank

mail to vedic astrology-....... May Jupiter's light

shine on us ....... To visit your group on the web, go

to:vedic astrology/ To from this

group, send an email to:vedic astrology Your use

of is subject to the

[Guest guest]

Dear Pradeep,

There are many systems based on the experience of the Rishis, who

formulated them. An astrologer has to find out which one he is most

comfortable with and use it to arrive at correct predictions.

 

Whether Rasi drishty or planets drishty, they indicate the

complimentary relations between various factors of a horoscope. I do not

use rasi drishty as I have a better understanding of a horoscope( at

least I think I have better understanding of a Horoscope that way) using

Planets drishty. One who is comfortable with Rasi drishty may as well do

so. The problem arises when these are used selectively. No doubt they

can assist one in explaining a particular wrong prediction, but I

seriously doubt whether this adds to one's knowledge. For example one

predicts on the basis of Planet drishty and when the prediction goes

wrong one takes recourse to explaining away the reason of the failure by

application of Rasi drishty. Same is the case with use of Aarudhas,

Karakamsha, Divisional charts etc. One should have a uniform approach to

any chart one analyses. You can not apply say Metric system to

manufacture a bolt and BSW for the nut , they would never fit properly.

 

My opinion is that dristies are in multiples of 30 degrees and their

application in Divisional charts might not be proper. However most of

astrologers, whose knowledge I respect; do take them in to

consideration. My opinion is based on the fact that you can not apply

them in classic hora charts as if so done, no planets would aspect any

other planet, be it Rasi drishty or Planet drishty, which would be

ridiculous. By classic Hora I mean the scheme where for Odd Rasi first

half is Sun's hora and second half is Moon hora and reverse for even

Rasi. The chart is drawn with all planets in Sun Hora shown in Leo and

those in Moon hora in Cancer. Even Parashara indicates that position of

planets is to be treated to be with strength in Squares, Trines,

Swagrihas and so on but does not indicate how their aspects are to be

interpreted, and I am certain nobody would claim that it was for lack of

knowledge.

 

Not much work has been done on Aarudhas and other parameters even by the

ancient sages and you must remember a recent mail with a query why with

planet in 11th from Aarudha Lagna no income is seen for the Native.

Barring Jaimini, Parashara and Nadi granthas none of the Acharyas have

said anything about them. Prashna Marga gives a different method of

assigning Aarudha Lagna.

 

This does not mean that the concept carries no substance, only that

exahaustive work has not been done on this aspect. Even the major yogas

are not based on these concept and as such it is difficult to know the

correct method of their application. It is very well to wax eloquent on

their applicability and the principles behind such practice, it is

another matter giving Authentic quotes from standard texts to support

the premise.

 

It is better if a student leaves their application to those who are well

versed in application of these principles uniformly to all horoscopes

that they analyse. The mail has become a bit longish, but to explain the

logic behind my views, I think it was necessary.

Chandrashekhar.

 

vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

 

> Dear Chandrashekhar ji

>

> Thanks for intervening and correcting by taking the role of a Guru

> whenever apt.

>

> My concern was mainly about mixing the views of different acharyas

> every here and there.I beleieve certain things when mixed will have

> superimposed effect.And certain principles are to be applied only at

> a single level and not in subsequent levels.This may distort the

> picture.

>

> For eg when u are planning to estimate the population of India,if

> you take into account, Maharashtra as a state, then there is no need

> to count population of Pune or Aurangabad again,it has already been

> taken into account at the proper level.

>

> One similar doubt was Yogada and Maha Yogada.When Rashi Drishtis are

> considered ,the assumption is that, along with the rashi, each

> planet in that rashi will also aspect the aspected rashi and the

> planets it contains.

>

> So my doubt is for considering such a yoga should we use both normal

> aspects as well as rashi aspect or only one among these at a time

> and not together!

>

> Similarly usage of Bhava Arudhas and corresponding lagnas in

> divisional charts.These have been covered at a higher level ie Rashi

> chart.Trying to do the same again at a finer level might not be

> useful - though one can use this.Because the sages might have

> observed a significance for these and also might have a logic for

> using it at the Rashi level.

>

> Divisional charts are just pin pointing in which exact division of

> each Rashi sign the planet is residing,to give the clearest picture

> of the planets residence and hence the strength.Even aspects in

> divisonal charts might not be useful,though one may use this.These

> are just my doubts without any basis - kindly help with your

> experience in understanding these.

>

> Respect

> Pradeep

>

>

> vedic astrology, "Chandrashekhar Sharma"

> <boxdel> wrote:

> > Dear Narasimha,Vijay Kumar, Anna,

> > If I may be so bold as to interject, is it not a fact that Jyotish

> is a

> > Vedanga and not restricted to only Parashara or Jaimini? There are

> said to

> > be 18 Pravartakas (Parashara being one of them) and numerous

> > Acharyas(Jaimini being one amongst them) who gave Jyotish as

> understood by

> > us in form of lectures which are now reduced to texts. Most of the

> Acharyas

> > of later days have drawn heavily on all available material to give

> us

> > classics like Saravali,Jatakaparijaata, Phaladeepika and many

> others.

> > Therefore limiting the basics of Astrology to any one of the

> Pravartakas or

> > Acharyas, as we do not have access to works of others like Romesh,

> Paulesh,

> > Chyavana, Narada et al may not help Jyotish much. If I have hurt

> anyone on

> > account of my views, I beg their pardon in advance.

> > Regards,

> > Chandrashekhar.

> >

> > pvr108 [pvr@c...]

> > Friday, December 19, 2003 9:55 PM

> > vedic astrology

> > [vedic astrology] Re: Parashari-Jaimini ! (to Vijay)

> >

> >

> > Namaste Mr. Vijay Kumar,

> >

> > > Dear Mr. Narsimha,

> > >

> > > Not only for you but for everybody does the knowledge-base

> > > of BPHS matters. You should not use such sarcasm on Parashara's

> > > BPHS that it does not matter to you. We should be proud of

> > > our ancestors for having given a wonderful wealth of knowledge.

> >

> > You are misrepresenting me and so I have clarify.

> >

> > There is no sarcasm.

> >

> > Secondly, I did not suggesting ignoring other authors altogether.

> >

> > What I meant is that those texts do not matter to me as far as

> > defining what consitutes "Parasari system" is concerned.

> >

> > My point is simple. IF one wants to define something called

> > "Parasari system", it MUST be defined based on what Parasara

> > himself taught. And not based on what some other authors taught.

> > This is neither an insult to others nor sarcasm.

> >

> > This is simple commonsense.

> >

> > > As far as the amalgamation of various techniques is under

> question,

> > one is free to

> >

> > use any technique anywhere whether or not it has the approval of

> the

> > classics. It is a

> >

> > good approach and it develops us beyound the texts. However,

> while

> > doing such usage, a

> >

> > clear statistical analysis should be done for the percentage of

> > success rate, which

> >

> > sometimes is not done.

> > >

> > > From my side, this topic stands closed unless you want to keep

> it

> > alive.

> > >

> > > Thanks and Regards,

> > >

> > > Vijay Kumar

> >

> > Thank you for the clarification. The topic stands closed for me

> too.

> >

> > For the impressionable young minds on the list, I state once

> again:

> > The classification of Parasari vs Jaimini is a later day

> creation.

> > What Mr. Vijay Kumar defined is "Parasari system" is only a small

> > part of the teachings of Parasara himself. People read later day

> > authors and they think they understood Parasara. This is sad.

> >

> > May Jupiter's light shine on us,

> > Narasimha

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > Group info: vedic-

> astrology/info.html

> >

> > To UNSUBSCRIBE: Blank mail to vedic astrology-

>

> >

> > ....... May Jupiter's light shine on us .......

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > -

> ---------

> > --

> > Links

> >

> >

> > vedic astrology/

> >

> > b..

> > vedic astrology

> >

> > c.. Terms

> of Service.

> >

> >

> > ---

> > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.

> > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).

> <http://www.grisoft.com%29.>

> > Version: 6.0.552 / Virus Database: 344 - Release 12/15/03

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

> ....... May Jupiter's light shine on us .......

>

>

>

>

> ------

> * Links*

>

> *

> vedic astrology/

>

> *

> vedic astrology

> <vedic astrology?subject=Un>

>

> * Terms of

> Service <>.

>

>

[Guest guest]

Dear Chandrashekar,

You raised serious issues here, indeed. I just copied some parts, although the

entire post questions in fact all we've learnt here, so far.

You said:You can not apply say Metric system to manufacture a bolt and BSW for

the nut , they would never fit properly.

You imply that wrt. rashi dristi, aroodas, that we are thought to use along with

graha dristi etc..I feel this is rather serious and wish if could see more

comments on this- this is in fact the first time I see on THIS list such a

view; implications would be far-reaching with lots of fundamental questions

raised.

Thank You.

Best regards,

Anna

 

 

 

There are many systems based on the experience of the Rishis, who formulated them...

 

one predicts on the basis of Planet drishty and when the prediction goes wrong

one takes recourse to explaining away the reason of the failure by application

of Rasi drishty. Same is the case with use of Aarudhas, Karakamsha, Divisional

charts etc. One should have a uniform approach to any chart one analyses. You

can not apply say Metric system to manufacture a bolt and BSW for the nut ,

they would never fit properly.

 

Not much work has been done on Aarudhas and other parameters even by the ancient

sages and ...This does not mean that the concept carries no substance, only that

exahaustive work has not been done on this aspect. Even the major yogas are not

based on these concept and as such it is difficult to know the correct method

of their application. It is very well to wax eloquent on their applicability

and the principles behind such practice, it is another matter giving Authentic

quotes from standard texts to support the premise.

 

 

New Photos - easier uploading and sharing

[Guest guest]

Dear Anna,

I am sorry that you appear to be shocked with my opinions. I would like

you to read what I have said carefully again. You will find that I have

already clarified that one should use the system that one is comfortable

with, and have also said that different Rishis devised different

systems. If you read the mail in its entirety, you will understand that

I am not saying anything contradictory to what is taught,but am trying

to indicate how the teachings are to be used. I merely say that

application of different system without understanding the logic behind

them could lead one to a wrong prediction. An example would be Prashna

Marga of deciding Aarudha based on the location of the querist or his

placing a piece of Gold on a particular direction on the circular chart.

Now would you say Aarudha arrived at by this method can use the

principles of Aarudha defined by Parashara and one will arrive at

correct predictions? Or can Aarudha arrived at by using Parashara

principles will give correct predictions when it is used to arrive at

conclusions based on the results given in Prashna Marga? I am certain

you will not. Similarly can Gulika and Mandi at different points of

reference be used when applying Jaataka Paarijata parameters, when the

text states specifically that they are synonyms of the same upagraha?

The logic behind what I wrote will be clear to you.

Regards,

Chandrashekhar.

Anna wrote:

 

>

>

> */Chandrashekhar <boxdel/* wrote:

>

> Dear Chandrashekar,

> You raised serious issues here, indeed. I just copied some parts,

> although the entire post questions in fact all we've learnt here, so far.

> You said:*_You can not apply say Metric system to manufacture a bolt

> and BSW for the nut , they would never fit properly._*

>

> You imply that wrt. rashi dristi, aroodas, that we are thought to use

> along with graha dristi etc..I feel this is rather serious and wish if

> could see more comments on this- this is in fact the first time I see

> on THIS list such a view; implications would be far-reaching with lots

> of fundamental questions raised.

>

> Thank You.

>

> Best regards,

>

> Anna

>

*There are many systems based on the experience of the Rishis, who

> formulated them...*

> **

> * one

> predicts on the basis of Planet drishty and when the prediction goes

> wrong one takes recourse to explaining away the reason of the failure by

> application of Rasi drishty. Same is the case with use of Aarudhas,

> Karakamsha, Divisional charts etc. One should have a uniform approach to

> any chart one analyses. _You can not apply say Metric system to

> manufacture a bolt and BSW for the nut , they would never fit properly._

> *

> **

> *Not much work has been done on Aarudhas and other parameters even by the

> ancient sages and ...This does not mean that the concept carries no

> substance, only that

> exahaustive work has not been done on this aspect. _Even the major yogas

> are not based on these concept and as such it is difficult to know the

> correct method of their application._ It is very well to wax eloquent on

> their applicability and the principles behind such practice, it is

> another matter giving Authentic quotes from standard texts to support

> the premise.

> *

>

>

>

>

> ------

>

> New Photos - easier uploading and sharing

>

<http://pa./*http://us.rd./evt=21260/*http://photos.>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

> ....... May Jupiter's light shine on us .......

>

>

>

>

> * Sponsor*

>

>

<http://rd./SIG=12c7j7q4l/M=266841.4316200.5507732.1261774/D=egroupweb/\

S=1705082686:HM/EXP=1072146101/A=1911858/R=0/*http://www.lifescapeinc.com/picasa\

/landing.php?capid=222&caId=1987>

>

>

>

> ------

> * Links*

>

> *

> vedic astrology/

>

> *

> vedic astrology

> <vedic astrology?subject=Un>

>

> * Terms of

> Service <>.

>

>

[Guest guest]

Dear Ajoy,

As I have said, one can use the system that one is comfortable with and

of which one has understood the logic and basis. Those who can arrive at

consistent results with drishties in Divisional charts can continue

doing so as they have understood the parameters applied. I was just

stating my views regarding the practice of professing one Sage as

greater than other and ascribing rigid systems to them. You will find

that even Pravartakas have given opinions of their peers without grudge,

and with due respect.

Regards,

Chandrashekhar.

 

ajoypb wrote:

 

> dear sir

> i had indirectly raised this issue earlier but then u kept

> quiet.. good that u have given ur view now...

> by the way i am reading bhasin books these days. he says

> that planets form the basis of vedic astrology analysis. stars r

> converted into planetary data by giving them planetary ownership and

> planetary dasa.. similarly rasis r converted into planetary forms

> by giving them planetary ownerships.... by and large bhasin ignores

> divisional charts (atleast in the books i have). but occasionally he

> does analyse them (navamsa). he however does seem to give imp to

> aspects there also. he also uses the rahu/ketu aspects by using

> the sloka given in some versions of BPHS

> with respect

> AJOY

>

>

>

>

> vedic astrology, Chandrashekhar <boxdel>

> wrote:

> > Dear Pradeep,

> > There are many systems based on the experience of the Rishis, who

> > formulated them. An astrologer has to find out which one he is most

> > comfortable with and use it to arrive at correct predictions.

> >

> > Whether Rasi drishty or planets drishty, they indicate the

> > complimentary relations between various factors of a horoscope. I

> do not

> > use rasi drishty as I have a better understanding of a horoscope(

> at

> > least I think I have better understanding of a Horoscope that way)

> using

> > Planets drishty. One who is comfortable with Rasi drishty may as

> well do

> > so. The problem arises when these are used selectively. No doubt

> they

> > can assist one in explaining a particular wrong prediction, but I

> > seriously doubt whether this adds to one's knowledge. For example

> one

> > predicts on the basis of Planet drishty and when the prediction

> goes

> > wrong one takes recourse to explaining away the reason of the

> failure by

> > application of Rasi drishty. Same is the case with use of Aarudhas,

> > Karakamsha, Divisional charts etc. One should have a uniform

> approach to

> > any chart one analyses. You can not apply say Metric system to

> > manufacture a bolt and BSW for the nut , they would never fit

> properly.

> >

> > My opinion is that dristies are in multiples of 30 degrees and

> their

> > application in Divisional charts might not be proper. However most

> of

> > astrologers, whose knowledge I respect; do take them in to

> > consideration. My opinion is based on the fact that you can not

> apply

> > them in classic hora charts as if so done, no planets would aspect

> any

> > other planet, be it Rasi drishty or Planet drishty, which would be

> > ridiculous. By classic Hora I mean the scheme where for Odd Rasi

> first

> > half is Sun's hora and second half is Moon hora and reverse for

> even

> > Rasi. The chart is drawn with all planets in Sun Hora shown in Leo

> and

> > those in Moon hora in Cancer. Even Parashara indicates that

> position of

> > planets is to be treated to be with strength in Squares, Trines,

> > Swagrihas and so on but does not indicate how their aspects are to

> be

> > interpreted, and I am certain nobody would claim that it was for

> lack of

> > knowledge.

> >

> > Not much work has been done on Aarudhas and other parameters even

> by the

> > ancient sages and you must remember a recent mail with a query why

> with

> > planet in 11th from Aarudha Lagna no income is seen for the Native.

> > Barring Jaimini, Parashara and Nadi granthas none of the Acharyas

> have

> > said anything about them. Prashna Marga gives a different method

> of

> > assigning Aarudha Lagna.

> >

> > This does not mean that the concept carries no substance, only that

> > exahaustive work has not been done on this aspect. Even the major

> yogas

> > are not based on these concept and as such it is difficult to know

> the

> > correct method of their application. It is very well to wax

> eloquent on

> > their applicability and the principles behind such practice, it is

> > another matter giving Authentic quotes from standard texts to

> support

> > the premise.

> >

> > It is better if a student leaves their application to those who are

> well

> > versed in application of these principles uniformly to all

> horoscopes

> > that they analyse. The mail has become a bit longish, but to

> explain the

> > logic behind my views, I think it was necessary.

> > Chandrashekhar.

> >

> > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> >

> > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > >

> > > Thanks for intervening and correcting by taking the role of a Guru

> > > whenever apt.

> > >

> > > My concern was mainly about mixing the views of different acharyas

> > > every here and there.I beleieve certain things when mixed will

> have

> > > superimposed effect.And certain principles are to be applied only

> at

> > > a single level and not in subsequent levels.This may distort the

> > > picture.

> > >

> > > For eg when u are planning to estimate the population of India,if

> > > you take into account, Maharashtra as a state, then there is no

> need

> > > to count population of Pune or Aurangabad again,it has already

> been

> > > taken into account at the proper level.

> > >

> > > One similar doubt was Yogada and Maha Yogada.When Rashi Drishtis

> are

> > > considered ,the assumption is that, along with the rashi, each

> > > planet in that rashi will also aspect the aspected rashi and the

> > > planets it contains.

> > >

> > > So my doubt is for considering such a yoga should we use both

> normal

> > > aspects as well as rashi aspect or only one among these at a time

> > > and not together!

> > >

> > > Similarly usage of Bhava Arudhas and corresponding lagnas in

> > > divisional charts.These have been covered at a higher level ie

> Rashi

> > > chart.Trying to do the same again at a finer level might not be

> > > useful - though one can use this.Because the sages might have

> > > observed a significance for these and also might have a logic for

> > > using it at the Rashi level.

> > >

> > > Divisional charts are just pin pointing in which exact division of

> > > each Rashi sign the planet is residing,to give the clearest

> picture

> > > of the planets residence and hence the strength.Even aspects in

> > > divisonal charts might not be useful,though one may use this.These

> > > are just my doubts without any basis - kindly help with your

> > > experience in understanding these.

> > >

> > > Respect

> > > Pradeep

> > >

> > >

> > > vedic astrology, "Chandrashekhar Sharma"

> > > <boxdel> wrote:

> > > > Dear Narasimha,Vijay Kumar, Anna,

> > > > If I may be so bold as to interject, is it not a fact that

> Jyotish

> > > is a

> > > > Vedanga and not restricted to only Parashara or Jaimini? There

> are

> > > said to

> > > > be 18 Pravartakas (Parashara being one of them) and numerous

> > > > Acharyas(Jaimini being one amongst them) who gave Jyotish as

> > > understood by

> > > > us in form of lectures which are now reduced to texts. Most of

> the

> > > Acharyas

> > > > of later days have drawn heavily on all available material to

> give

> > > us

> > > > classics like Saravali,Jatakaparijaata, Phaladeepika and many

> > > others.

> > > > Therefore limiting the basics of Astrology to any one of the

> > > Pravartakas or

> > > > Acharyas, as we do not have access to works of others like

> Romesh,

> > > Paulesh,

> > > > Chyavana, Narada et al may not help Jyotish much. If I have hurt

> > > anyone on

> > > > account of my views, I beg their pardon in advance.

> > > > Regards,

> > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > >

> > > > pvr108 [pvr@c...]

> > > > Friday, December 19, 2003 9:55 PM

> > > > vedic astrology

> > > > [vedic astrology] Re: Parashari-Jaimini ! (to Vijay)

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Namaste Mr. Vijay Kumar,

> > > >

> > > > > Dear Mr. Narsimha,

> > > > >

> > > > > Not only for you but for everybody does the knowledge-base

> > > > > of BPHS matters. You should not use such sarcasm on

> Parashara's

> > > > > BPHS that it does not matter to you. We should be proud of

> > > > > our ancestors for having given a wonderful wealth of

> knowledge.

> > > >

> > > > You are misrepresenting me and so I have clarify.

> > > >

> > > > There is no sarcasm.

> > > >

> > > > Secondly, I did not suggesting ignoring other authors

> altogether.

> > > >

> > > > What I meant is that those texts do not matter to me as far as

> > > > defining what consitutes "Parasari system" is concerned.

> > > >

> > > > My point is simple. IF one wants to define something called

> > > > "Parasari system", it MUST be defined based on what Parasara

> > > > himself taught. And not based on what some other authors

> taught.

> > > > This is neither an insult to others nor sarcasm.

> > > >

> > > > This is simple commonsense.

> > > >

> > > > > As far as the amalgamation of various techniques is under

> > > question,

> > > > one is free to

> > > >

> > > > use any technique anywhere whether or not it has the approval

> of

> > > the

> > > > classics. It is a

> > > >

> > > > good approach and it develops us beyound the texts. However,

> > > while

> > > > doing such usage, a

> > > >

> > > > clear statistical analysis should be done for the percentage

> of

> > > > success rate, which

> > > >

> > > > sometimes is not done.

> > > > >

> > > > > From my side, this topic stands closed unless you want to

> keep

> > > it

> > > > alive.

> > > > >

> > > > > Thanks and Regards,

> > > > >

> > > > > Vijay Kumar

> > > >

> > > > Thank you for the clarification. The topic stands closed for

> me

> > > too.

> > > >

> > > > For the impressionable young minds on the list, I state once

> > > again:

> > > > The classification of Parasari vs Jaimini is a later day

> > > creation.

> > > > What Mr. Vijay Kumar defined is "Parasari system" is only a

> small

> > > > part of the teachings of Parasara himself. People read later

> day

> > > > authors and they think they understood Parasara. This is sad.

> > > >

> > > > May Jupiter's light shine on us,

> > > > Narasimha

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Group info: vedic-

> > > astrology/info.html

> > > >

> > > > To UNSUBSCRIBE: Blank mail to vedic astrology-

> > >

> > > >

> > > > ....... May Jupiter's light shine on us .......

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > -------------------------------

> ---

> > > ---------

> > > > --

> > > > Links

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > vedic astrology/

> > > >

> > > > b..

> > > > vedic astrology

> > > >

> > > > c.. Terms

> > > of Service.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > ---

> > > > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.

> > > > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).

> <http://www.grisoft.com%29.>

> > > <http://www.grisoft.com%29.>

> > > > Version: 6.0.552 / Virus Database: 344 - Release 12/15/03

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > To UNSUBSCRIBE: Blank mail to vedic astrology-

>

> > >

> > > ....... May Jupiter's light shine on us .......

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> ------

> > > * Links*

> > >

> > > *

> > > vedic astrology/

> > >

> > > *

> > > vedic astrology

> > > <vedic astrology?

> subject=Un>

> > >

> > > * Terms of

> > > Service <>.

> > >

> > >

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

> ....... May Jupiter's light shine on us .......

>

>

>

>

> * Sponsor*

>

>

<http://rd./SIG=12cb9iqrf/M=266841.4316200.5507732.1261774/D=egroupweb/\

S=1705082686:HM/EXP=1072159330/A=1911856/R=0/*http://www.lifescapeinc.com/picasa\

/landing.php?capid=222&caId=1985>

>

>

>

> ------

> * Links*

>

> *

> vedic astrology/

>

> *

> vedic astrology

> <vedic astrology?subject=Un>

>

> * Terms of

> Service <>.

>

>

[Guest guest]

I have read carefully..

Thank you.

AnnaChandrashekhar <boxdel (AT) (DOT) co.uk> wrote:

Dear Anna,I am sorry that you appear to be shocked with my opinions. I would

like you to read what I have said carefully again. You will find that I have

already clarified that one should use the system that one is comfortable with,

and have also said that different Rishis devised different systems. If you

read the mail in its entirety, you will understand that I am not saying

anything contradictory to what is taught,but am trying to indicate how the

teachings are to be used. I merely say that application of different system

without understanding the logic behind them could lead one to a wrong

prediction. An example would be Prashna Marga of deciding Aarudha based on the

location of the querist or his placing a piece of Gold on a particular

direction on the circular chart. Now would you say Aarudha arrived at by this

method can use the principles of Aarudha defined by Parashara and one will

arrive at correct predictions? Or can Aarudha arrived at by using Parashara

principles will give correct predictions when it is used to arrive at

conclusions based on the results given in Prashna Marga? I am certain you will

not. Similarly can Gulika and Mandi at different points of reference be used

when applying Jaataka Paarijata parameters, when the text states specifically

that they are synonyms of the same upagraha? The logic behind what I wrote will

be clear to you.Regards,Chandrashekhar.Anna wrote:>>> */Chandrashekhar

<boxdel (AT) (DOT) co.uk>/* wrote:> > Dear Chandrashekar,> You raised serious

issues here, indeed. I just copied some parts, > although the entire post

questions in fact all we've learnt here, so far.> You said:*_You can not apply

say Metric system to manufacture a

bolt > and BSW for the nut , they would never fit properly._*>> You imply that

wrt. rashi dristi, aroodas, that we are thought to use > along with graha

dristi etc..I feel this is rather serious and wish if > could see more comments

on this- this is in fact the first time I see > on THIS list such a view;

implications would be far-reaching with lots > of fundamental questions

raised.>> Thank You.>> Best regards,>> Anna>> >> >>> > *There are many

systems based on the experience of the Rishis, who> formulated them...*> ** > *

one> predicts on the basis of Planet drishty and when the prediction goes> wrong

one takes recourse to explaining away the reason of the failure by> application

of Rasi drishty. Same is the case with use of Aarudhas,> Karakamsha, Divisional

charts etc.

One should have a uniform approach to> any chart one analyses. _You can not

apply say Metric system to> manufacture a bolt and BSW for the nut , they

would never fit properly._> *> ** > *Not much work has been done on Aarudhas

and other parameters even by the> ancient sages and ...This does not mean that

the concept carries no > substance, only that> exahaustive work has not been

done on this aspect. _Even the major yogas> are not based on these concept and

as such it is difficult to know the> correct method of their application._ It

is very well to wax eloquent on> their applicability and the principles behind

such practice, it is> another matter giving Authentic quotes from standard

texts to support> the premise.> *>>> > >

------> Do

you ?> New

Photos - easier uploading and sharing >

<http://pa./*http://us.rd./evt=21260/*http://photos.>

>>> Archives: vedic astrology>> Group info:

vedic astrology/info.html>> To UNSUBSCRIBE: Blank

mail to vedic astrology->> ....... May Jupiter's light

shine on us .......>> || Om Tat Sat || Sarvam Sri Krishnaarpanamastu

||>>> * Sponsor*> >

<http://rd./SIG=12c7j7q4l/M=266841.4316200.5507732.1261774/D=egroupweb/S=1705082686:HM/EXP=1072146101/A=1911858/R=0/*http://www.lifescapeinc.com/picasa/landing.php?capid=222&caId=1987>

>>>> ------>

* Links*>> * >

vedic astrology/> > * To

from this group, send an email to:>

vedic astrology>

<vedic astrology?subject=Un>>

> * Terms of>

Service <>.>>Archives:

vedic astrologyGroup info:

vedic astrology/info.htmlTo UNSUBSCRIBE: Blank

mail to vedic astrology-....... May Jupiter's light

shine on us .......To visit your group on the web, go

to:vedic astrology/ To from this

group, send an email to:vedic astrology Your use

of is subject to the

 

 

Photos - Get your photo on the big screen in Times Square