Guest guest Posted December 18, 2003 Report Share Posted December 18, 2003 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 19, 2003 Report Share Posted December 19, 2003 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 19, 2003 Report Share Posted December 19, 2003 Dear Chandrashekhar ji, Very well said! Parasara is one of the 18 pravartakas. Our goal should be to understand the teachings of all the 18 seers (if we get access) and integrate them, drawing from the works of other acharyas (including Jaimini). Instead, some people are excluding a big portion of Parasara's own teachings from the so-called "Parasari system". This is unfortunate. May Jupiter's light shine on us, Narasimha > 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 20, 2003 Report Share Posted December 20, 2003 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). > Version: 6.0.552 / Virus Database: 344 - Release 12/15/03 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 21, 2003 Report Share Posted December 21, 2003 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.> > > > 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 <>. > > > > 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.