Integration and Differentiation

[Guest guest]

Dear Narasimha Raoji

 

It has helped a lot along with Chandrashekhar jis mail to get things

cleared.When the realms are flexible it enhances growth as compared

with rigidity.

 

I have still some doubts regarding the logic behind aspects and

divisional charts.If you or any other learned member could clear

this, i would be happy.

What is the logic behind the division of each rashi into 9,10,24

etc.And in each rashi the individual divisions(navamsha,dashamsha

etc)starts from aries until pisces and then aries and so on.What is

the logic of having another aries or venus within a pisces.Does it

mean that it is similar to DNA or so that anything(any rashi) can be

further divided to get the same essence again(aries until pisces)?

 

Another one is usage of arudhas and similar techniques in divisional

charts.

 

Thanks in advance

Pradeep

 

 

 

 

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

<pvr@c...> wrote:

> Om Gurave Namah

> Namaste all,

>

> I was away during the weekend and did not read any mails.

>

> But it looks like this "X system vs Y system" talk has reached

another level altogether. Certain important basics have to be

stressed again, so that confusion in the minds of readers is not

compounded further.

>

> (1) Though it is true that Parasara was mentioned as one of the

eighteen authorities (pravartakas) of JyotisSaastra, nowhere is it

mentioned that these eighteen authorities taught

eighteen "different" kinds of "systems".

>

> In fact, Parasara's son Vyasa is also one of the eighteen

authorities mentioned in Sastras. He did not start his own "system"

after all.

>

> If somebody suggests that Surya, Garga, Narada, Vyasa, Vasishtha,

Atri, Kashyapa, Manu etc had their own "systems", rather than simply

teaching their perspectives on the same single system

that "JyotisSastra" is, the burden of proof lies squarely on them.

>

> (2) Coming back to "Parsara vs Jaimini", please note that Jaimini

is not one of the 18 pravartakas. He is a great maharshi who threw

further light on Parasara's teachings. Pitting "his system"

opposite "Parasara's system", while overly restricting Parasara's

system to a smaaaaall subset of Parasara's own teachings is

meaningless and leads to many confusions. This bad habit has to end.

>

> (3) Chandrashekhar ji's point on not mixing up sign aspects and

planetary aspects is valid. However, the issue at the heart is not

that of mixing up "systems", but that of mixing up parameters within

the same system. I will elaborate.

>

> If somebody suggests that sign aspects are not part of Pararsara's

system, it is a laughable suggestion. I say it because Parasara

himself taught sign aspects and taught them before teaching any

other kind of aspects. Unfortunately, some people are stubborn and

they create an artificial "Parasari system" with a small subset of

Parasara's teachings. Their "Parasari system" is simply their own

system and not exactly Parasara's system.

>

> So it is crystal-clear that both sign aspects and planetary

aspects are part of the system taught by Parasara.

>

> However, they clearly do not represent the same thing. If so,

Parasara would not define both. So they have their own unique

meanings (which, BTW, was brought out clearly many times on this

list and in the books by Pt. Rath and my book too). We need to

differentiate them and not mix them up or use them in a confused (or

opportunistic) way. The same thing holds for many other parameters.

For example, houses, their bhava arudhas, house lords and their

graha arudhas are four totally different parameters. Each has its

own unique meaning. We should not mix them up. They were all used by

Parasara and hence part of "Parasara's system".

>

> Thus, saying that houses/house lords are used in one system (say,

so-called "Parasari system") and their bhava/graha arudhas are used

in another system (say, so-called "Jaimini system") is as wrong as

mixing them up and using them interchangably.

>

> The only correct approach is to recognize that they are all part

of Parasara's system (and hence part of Jaimini's system) and to

learn their correct differentiation.

>

> Integration and differentiation go hand in hand. As we integrate

multiple concepts and parameters, we need to clearly differentiate

between them. If I use A3 to show the books written by me in one

case and 3rd house in another case, it is clearly illogical. If I

use the 3rd house to see my communucation skills and A3 to see the

actual material/tangible artefacts of my communication skills (e.g.

my books/articles), it is more logical. Consistency is the key. By

carefully going thru the classics and the secrets from the

tradition, we can come to the correct conclusions. That will lead to

a renaissance in JyotisSaastra.

>

> But, partitioning concepts and parameters in the name of Sages

(like Parasara vs Jaimini), instead of differentiating their clear

meanings, and using them interchangably in two sets of

rules/concepts (as in "Parasari system and Jaimini system") is not

going to do anything for a renaissance in JyotisSaastra.

>

> (4) Open-mindedness is good, but let us not stretch it too far to

include "true nodes" etc. That kind of open-mindedness is like vaayu

tattva. It leads to no consolidation of any knowledge.

>

> It is too late and I have to sleep. More later, possibly...

>

> In case I stay away from the lists in the next 10 days, let me

wish right now: Have a merry Christmas and a happy new year!

>

> May Jupiter's light shine on us,

> Narasimha

>

> > Hare Rama Krishna

> >

> > Dear Chandrasekhar Ji,

> >

> > Your longish mails are very informative. Pls keep writing

longish ones. At the end of the last mail you were saying it became

too long. It was a good mail. Now your clarification is still better.

> >

> > i also feel that people using True nodes & using different

ayanamsas are sticking to their own basics ( if i may say so!).

> >

> > From what you said, can we speculate that the other Rishis whose

works are lost were using different 'systems'. What could be the

root of all this?

> >

> > Many thanks and best regards

> > viswanadham