Parasara Quote: Aspects in Divisional Charts

[Guest guest]

Dear Narasimha ji

 

Thanks for all your valuable time.Since you have no time to discuss i

am not going to bother you.

 

But i have to say when we are transforming 3.3 degrees of a sign into

full sign- we are extrapolating a planets position.For me real

position and aspects are of higher priority than mapped positions.If

you are interested to know abt my view on this extrapolation pls

refer to the mail sent to Anna ji whenever you are free.

 

I respect tradition and Gurujis.But that doesnt prevent me from

expressing my views.

 

Best regds & Thanks

Pradeep

 

vedic astrology, "Narasimha P.V.R. Rao"

<pvr@c...> wrote:

> Namaste friends,

>

> I do not have time to engage in a detailed argument with Pradeep

etc. I am making the main point below and withdrawing from this

discussion.

>

> Chandrashekhar ji wrote:

>

> > He has also not told to cast individual charts as he does in case

of

> > special ascendants (Ch5 Shloka9)

> > in case of Divisional charts. Again while use of Vargas shlokas

52 and

> > 53 indicate that the signs occupied are to be considered to

arrive at

> > the strengths ( and by implication the results) of planets. He

does not

> > indicate any change due to planetary aspects, as he does in

various

> > other Yogas, not dealing with Varga charts.

>

> Pradeep also expressed his views. Unfortunately, people are getting

carried away with some basic concepts like nakshatra padas, navamsas

and tattvas and going in cycles, not seeing the bigger picture of

multiple vargas. It is ok to dig deep into the definition of navamsa.

But, for god's sake, recognize navamsa as a chart at the end. If a

planet is at 14 deg in Sg, it is in Sg in kshetra chakra, Le in

navamsa chakra and Ar in dasamsa chakra. When you recognize Le in

navamsa chart and Ar in dasamsa chart as the signs of the zodiac (a

3.33 or 3 degree portion of the zodiac is mapped to these full signs

for the purpose of constructing navamsa and dasamsa charts), they

obviously follow all the rules mentioned by Parasara like exaltation,

debilitation, counting houses, aspects etc. Parasara never limited

those concepts to kshetra chakra (rasi chakra). He defined 16 chakras

and whatever he said later naturally applies to all charts, unless a

chart was specifically mentioned.

>

> Regarding aspects in divisional charts, there is an explicit quote

from Parasara that establishes them. Please see 39-13 in BPHS (this

number is from Santhanam version. If you have GCSharma version, the

number will be different. Please check the 13th verse in the chapter

on raja yogas).

>

> lagna shadvargake chaivameka kheta yutekshite |

> raaja yogo bhavatyeva nirvisankam dwijottama || 39-13

>

> This means: "O excellent of Brahmins, if the same PLANET is

occupying or ASPECTING lagna in the SIX divisional charts belonging

to the shadvarga group, it undoubtedly gives a raja yoga". The six

charts in shadvarga group are rasi (D-1), hora (D-2), drekkana (D-3),

navamsa (D-9), dwadasamsa (D-12) and thrimsamsa (D-30).

>

> This clearly means that planets do have aspects in divisional

charts also.

>

> Atleast rasi drishti (sign aspect) should be valid in divisional

charts. In fact, the verse after the above verse talks about the

magnitudes of the aspects for seeing the magnitude of yoga and hence

it implies that graha drishti (planetary aspect) is being referred

to. Rasi drishti of signs and planets does not have magnitudes, only

graha drishti of planets does.

>

> Understanding the basis of navamsas is one thing and understanding

the basis of each varga chart is quite another. In addition,

understanding the use of each divisional charts is quite a different

matter. Don't get caught in one thing and ignore the other. You can

count houses from various references in divisional charts, you can

find arudhas of various houses and house lords and find rasi drishti,

graha drishti and argalas. There is so much that you can do in

divisional charts that is granted by Parasara (and also from our

tradition!).

>

> The parampara (tradition) of Sri Achyuta Dasa that is represented

by Sri Jagannath Centre has a lot of excellent knowledge on

divisional charts. Try to stop these trivial arguments and learn the

knowledge.

>

> May Jupiter's light shine on us,

> Narasimha

[Guest guest]

Namaste Pradeep,

 

> Dear Narasimha ji

>

> Thanks for all your valuable time.Since you have no time to discuss

i

> am not going to bother you.

>

> But i have to say when we are transforming 3.3 degrees of a sign

into

> full sign- we are extrapolating a planets position.For me real

> position and aspects are of higher priority than mapped

> positions.If

 

The positions in divisional charts are also "real" positions. They

are not fictitious or imaginary. They are in a transformed space

that can't be seen physically.

 

The rasi chart positions are what can be "physically" seen. Naturally

rasi chart is the chart of physical existence. Other chart positions

are also "real", but they are not "physical". Distinguish between

the two.

 

Regarding which aspects should be taken, I do not really care about

your views or even late Santhanam's views. The quote from Parasara I

gave very clearly shows that planets have aspects in divisional

charts also. The same planet aspecting lagna in the six divisional

charts, for example, confers a raja yoga. If all the aspects are

full, raja yoga gives the fullest results.

 

When you are analyzing rasi chart to see physical existence, aspects

in it are important. When you are analyzing a divisional chart to

see the environment related to a particular area of life, aspects in

that divisional chart are important. So both are important and you

cannot say one is more important than the other.

 

Even after the quote, if you hang on to the view that divisional

charts are not "charts" or you can't see aspects in them, I don't

know what to say. The quote clearly establishes that aspects in

divisional chart have Parasara's approval.

 

If you don't want to learn or use divisional charts properly, it is

not my loss! My only worry is that you may be creating doubts in the

minds of impressionable young people with your misinformed circular

logic.

 

> you are interested to know abt my view on this extrapolation pls

> refer to the mail sent to Anna ji whenever you are free.

>

> I respect tradition and Gurujis.But that doesnt prevent me from

> expressing my views.

>

> Best regds & Thanks

> Pradeep

 

May Jupiter's light shine on us,

Narasimha

[Guest guest]

Dear Narasimha ji

 

I have no more logic or knowledge to convince you.Now you are saying

you dont care for Santhanam's logic as well.

 

The very shloka you have quoted was translated by Santhanam(as per

your mail).So do you think Santhanam didn't understand the meaning of

this shloka while mentioning his views in 'Deva Keralam'.Now i have

to study this shloka well as i am not good in sanskrit.

 

> The rasi chart positions are what can be "physically" seen.

Naturally

> rasi chart is the chart of physical existence. Other chart positions

> are also "real", but they are not "physical". Distinguish between

> the two.

 

I am wondering why you cannot physically see the planetry positions

while you can physically see the indications of D-4.All the

properties indicated by D-4 are tangible.It is close to Rashi

chart,it is about your cattles,landed properties and all.

 

My only worry is that you may be creating doubts in the

> minds of impressionable young people with your misinformed circular

> logic.

 

I think if i create doubts ,i am only igniting their thought process

to look sincerely for reality.

 

I hope i have not shown any disrespect.If you don't consider my views

i have no problem,but when a scholar like late Santhanam had similar

views -dont you think its worth giving a second thought.

 

Thanks

Pradeep

 

 

 

vedic astrology, "pvr108" <pvr@c...> wrote:

> Namaste Pradeep,

>

> > Dear Narasimha ji

> >

> > Thanks for all your valuable time.Since you have no time to

discuss

> i

> > am not going to bother you.

> >

> > But i have to say when we are transforming 3.3 degrees of a sign

> into

> > full sign- we are extrapolating a planets position.For me real

> > position and aspects are of higher priority than mapped

> > positions.If

>

> The positions in divisional charts are also "real" positions. They

> are not fictitious or imaginary. They are in a transformed space

> that can't be seen physically.

>

> The rasi chart positions are what can be "physically" seen.

Naturally

> rasi chart is the chart of physical existence. Other chart positions

> are also "real", but they are not "physical". Distinguish between

> the two.

>

> Regarding which aspects should be taken, I do not really care about

> your views or even late Santhanam's views. The quote from Parasara I

> gave very clearly shows that planets have aspects in divisional

> charts also. The same planet aspecting lagna in the six divisional

> charts, for example, confers a raja yoga. If all the aspects are

> full, raja yoga gives the fullest results.

>

> When you are analyzing rasi chart to see physical existence, aspects

> in it are important. When you are analyzing a divisional chart to

> see the environment related to a particular area of life, aspects in

> that divisional chart are important. So both are important and you

> cannot say one is more important than the other.

>

> Even after the quote, if you hang on to the view that divisional

> charts are not "charts" or you can't see aspects in them, I don't

> know what to say. The quote clearly establishes that aspects in

> divisional chart have Parasara's approval.

>

> If you don't want to learn or use divisional charts properly, it is

> not my loss! My only worry is that you may be creating doubts in the

> minds of impressionable young people with your misinformed circular

> logic.

>

> > you are interested to know abt my view on this extrapolation pls

> > refer to the mail sent to Anna ji whenever you are free.

> >

> > I respect tradition and Gurujis.But that doesnt prevent me from

> > expressing my views.

> >

> > Best regds & Thanks

> > Pradeep

>

> May Jupiter's light shine on us,

> Narasimha