Guest guest Posted September 22, 2004 Report Share Posted September 22, 2004 Dear Jagaanaath, I dont know whether the reference is to me as I called Chandarshekhar as a friend. As far as I am concerned, Chandarshekhar can be called as a friend since I am same age as his. Vedic culture demands respect of all elders and not favourites only. I am sad you are professing something which you have not learnt completely. Pran Razdan --- jaagaanaath <jaagaanaath wrote: > Dear Friend, > > Chandrasekhar is not your friend. Give this man his proper > due (respect) and you should learn this thing from the beginning > as his age is twice of your age.This not my view point, this what > vedic culture is !!! > > May god bless us. > > > Jaagaanaath. > > > vedic astrology, "Sarajit Poddar" > <sarajit@s...> wrote: > > || Jaya Jagannath || > > Dear Chandrashekhar, > > > > Thank you for the comment from the puranas. > > " Lord Rama had to undergo vanvaas on account of Guru in Lagna, > Guru in third sent Bali to Patala. Guru in fourth tested Satwa of > King Harishchandra, Guru in sixth made Draupadi face Cheerharana. > Guru > in eighth destroyed (Nasha) Ravana, Tenth house Guru killed > Duryodhana > and 12th house Guru sent Pandu to forest." It further says that > Bhishma was deprived of Kingdom on account of Guru in 2nd, King > Dasharath had to loose his Son Rama (Putrashoka) on account of Guru > in > 5th. Aja Raja had to suffer separation from his wife on account of > Guru in Seventh. Vishwamitra had to consume non eatables (Abhakshya) > on account of his Guru in 9th." > > > > Regards > > Sarajit > > - > > Chandrashekhar > > PNRazdan > > Cc: Prafulla Gang ; vedic astrology > > Wednesday, September 22, 2004 5:00 AM > > Re: [vedic astrology] Re: 2nd house Jup in various > roles--to Chandraji > > > > > > Dear Razdan, > > > > Read BPHS again, Sage Parashara states opinion of Narada in > Ghatika Lagna shloka, refers to opinions of the learned (not Brahma) > in shloka 15 Ch.11, shloka 15 Ch.12. First shloka of Bhava Pada > Adhyaya again mentions that he is telling the special effects of Pada > as told by other Sages (again not Brahma). He he also mentions > opinion > of others in first shloka of Karaka Adhyaya. The great Sage has in > almost all Adhyayas given credit to other learneds in one or other of > the shlokas, besides what Maitreya himself said to Sage Parashara in > the beginning of Ashtakavarga Adhyaya. In Shloka 1 of that Adhyaya > Maitreya clearly says that Parashara has given opinions of many > Rishis > and Acharyas. So saying that Parashara only told what had been > revealed to him by Lord Brahma would be showing disrespect to the > Great sage who had the magnanimity to give credit to other Rishis and > Acharyas. > > > > Since you are questioning veracity and authority of the shlokas > that I quoted, I would like to give you the Texts in which the > shlokas > appear. If you read Tatvapradeepjataka and Chamatkaar Chintamani you > will find them. The first text has the shlokas and the later again > mentions same shlokas. If you read Chamatkar Chintamani further you > will find Jupiter giving harm to at least one indication of each of > the houses/bhavas he occupies. It also mentions a shloka from Purana > which says: > > > > " Lord Rama had to undergo vanvaas on account of Guru in Lagna, > Guru in third sent Bali to Patala. Guru in fourth tested Satwa of > King Harishchandra, Guru in sixth made Draupadi face Cheerharana. > Guru > in eighth destroyed (Nasha) Ravana, Tenth house Guru killed > Duryodhana > and 12th house Guru sent Pandu to forest." It further says that > Bhishma was deprived of Kingdom on account of Guru in 2nd, King > Dasharath had to loose his Son Rama (Putrashoka) on account of Guru > in > 5th. Aja Raja had to suffer separation from his wife on account of > Guru in Seventh. Vishwamitra had to consume non eatables (Abhakshya) > on account of his Guru in 9th." > > > > I would not like to respond to your other comments but would like > to mention here that the group is formed with an intention of > learning > and discussing principles of astrology. I do not to your > assumption of astrology being a rigid science not open to > interpretation. Some of your comments are uncalled for. > > Chandrashekhar. > > > > PNRazdan wrote: > > > > Dear Chandarshekhar, > > There is nothing amusing in my reasoning. Parashara is quoting no > > ordinary Muni but Lord Brahma himself which gave us the > BPHS.Similarly > > Prithuysas is quoting his father the great Vrahmihir which gave us > the > > Horasastra. Equating your shaloka quoting a nameless sage (not > sages as > > I said earlier, but only one sage-I was incorrect because the noun > and > > verb is singular) would be like showing candle to the Sun. > > I dont think this discussion is going to serve any purpose. You are > not > > prepared to reveal the origin of the shalok you are so much > depending > > upon. By now it seems it is something casually said to which I > attached > > more than necessary importance. You seem to have attained the role > of > > some sort of a master in this group wanting your disciples to hunt > for > > themselves what you hint at. But I dont think this is an Ashram. > This > > is a forum of discussion where an academic discussion takes place > > openly without reservations. Or possibly there may be other reasons > for > > you not to come out openly. > > The moral of this story however is clear. Astrology is a science. > It > > has a method. Under this method several books have all along > treated > > Jup as a benefic planet and all interpretations are based on this > > principle with modifications depending on its functionality, > place, > > lordship, strength etc etc. If you now put forth a crazy idea that > > Jupiter is a malefic or malefic like planet ( destroys the house it > is > > placed in), it turns the science from a method into a madness. It > will > > put doubts into the minds of all astrologists while interpreting > its > > effects, particularly on young minds aspiring to learn jyotish. > Already > > I see a discussion started on these lines on this group which in my > > opinion is energy wasted on a wrong notion. Everytime one sees Jup > in a > > house, a doubt will arise as to whether it is good or bad. Some > will > > associate it with good they had in that house and others with > whatever > > bad they had. > > > > So if you are determined to reap cheap publicity by making radical, > > unauthenticated and unconventional "advices", you may do so as this > is > > a free forum. But the least I can say is that this would be the > > greatest disservice to the field of Vedic Astrology. > > My humble suggestion to learned members would be to accept any > advice > > only after their own study and research and use dependable > commentators > > like Raman, Rao etc.for clarifications. It would be fair to treat > any > > advice seriously only if it is backed up by its source so as to > make > > independent verification possible unless the author says it to be > his > > own research/ experience. > > > > Chandarshekharji, so let us decide to close this discussion as > friends > > (not by coincidence are we both having Jup as lagnesh). > > So far I didnot discuss specifics with you since I was on a > headlines > > discussion. > > Let me now respond to your last two queries.The reference to Jup in > the > > Second house discussion of BPHS has to be read in totality i.e all > the > > three shalokas 1,2 and 3 and not the 3rd only. Let me give a gist > of > > each here > > First shaloka: Dhanesh in second, quadrants, trines is > dhanvridhikarak > > (wealth giving) in 6,8,12 opposite. > > Second Shaloka: Benefics in 2nd house, conjunct or aspected by > > benefics- wealth giving. Malefics in 2nd house opposite effect. > Nowhere > > is jupiter separated out as you claim to be.So long as it is known > as a > > benefic, it qualifies to be a wealth giver according to this > shaloka. > > Third Shaloka: If 2nd lord is Jupiter and is also posited in the > same > > house. And if Mars is also placed with it, then the subject becomes > > wealthy. Period. > > This does not mean that if Mars is not there, Jupiter alone will > harm > > the house. This is an implication which you are trying to make out > > probably to make your Muni's dictum hold good. Parashara never > means > > it. He means to say that while a swagrahi jupiter in second is > enough > > to make one rich but with Mars there it adds to ones wealth. Mark > the > === message truncated === _______________________________ Declare Yourself - Register online to vote today! http://vote. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 22, 2004 Report Share Posted September 22, 2004 Dear Mr. Razdan, This is not for you,I think you are writing this in a aggresive mood without giving a proper look to my mail. I personally do not know Mr. Chandrasekhar & by the way I did not understand your statement " sad you are professing something which you have not learnt completely. " Could you kindly explain me this further? Jaagaanaath. anyhow vedic astrology, PNRazdan <pnrazdan> wrote: > Dear Jagaanaath, > I dont know whether the reference is to me as I called Chandarshekhar > as a friend. > As far as I am concerned, Chandarshekhar can be called as a friend > since I am same age as his. > Vedic culture demands respect of all elders and not favourites only. I > am sad you are professing something which you have not learnt > completely. > > Pran Razdan > > --- jaagaanaath <jaagaanaath> wrote: > > > Dear Friend, > > > > Chandrasekhar is not your friend. Give this man his proper > > due (respect) and you should learn this thing from the beginning > > as his age is twice of your age.This not my view point, this what > > vedic culture is !!! > > > > May god bless us. > > > > > > Jaagaanaath. > > > > > > vedic astrology, "Sarajit Poddar" > > <sarajit@s...> wrote: > > > || Jaya Jagannath || > > > Dear Chandrashekhar, > > > > > > Thank you for the comment from the puranas. > > > " Lord Rama had to undergo vanvaas on account of Guru in Lagna, > > Guru in third sent Bali to Patala. Guru in fourth tested Satwa of > > King Harishchandra, Guru in sixth made Draupadi face Cheerharana. > > Guru > > in eighth destroyed (Nasha) Ravana, Tenth house Guru killed > > Duryodhana > > and 12th house Guru sent Pandu to forest." It further says that > > Bhishma was deprived of Kingdom on account of Guru in 2nd, King > > Dasharath had to loose his Son Rama (Putrashoka) on account of Guru > > in > > 5th. Aja Raja had to suffer separation from his wife on account of > > Guru in Seventh. Vishwamitra had to consume non eatables (Abhakshya) > > on account of his Guru in 9th." > > > > > > Regards > > > Sarajit > > > - > > > Chandrashekhar > > > PNRazdan > > > Cc: Prafulla Gang ; vedic astrology > > > Wednesday, September 22, 2004 5:00 AM > > > Re: [vedic astrology] Re: 2nd house Jup in various > > roles--to Chandraji > > > > > > > > > Dear Razdan, > > > > > > Read BPHS again, Sage Parashara states opinion of Narada in > > Ghatika Lagna shloka, refers to opinions of the learned (not Brahma) > > in shloka 15 Ch.11, shloka 15 Ch.12. First shloka of Bhava Pada > > Adhyaya again mentions that he is telling the special effects of Pada > > as told by other Sages (again not Brahma). He he also mentions > > opinion > > of others in first shloka of Karaka Adhyaya. The great Sage has in > > almost all Adhyayas given credit to other learneds in one or other of > > the shlokas, besides what Maitreya himself said to Sage Parashara in > > the beginning of Ashtakavarga Adhyaya. In Shloka 1 of that Adhyaya > > Maitreya clearly says that Parashara has given opinions of many > > Rishis > > and Acharyas. So saying that Parashara only told what had been > > revealed to him by Lord Brahma would be showing disrespect to the > > Great sage who had the magnanimity to give credit to other Rishis and > > Acharyas. > > > > > > Since you are questioning veracity and authority of the shlokas > > that I quoted, I would like to give you the Texts in which the > > shlokas > > appear. If you read Tatvapradeepjataka and Chamatkaar Chintamani you > > will find them. The first text has the shlokas and the later again > > mentions same shlokas. If you read Chamatkar Chintamani further you > > will find Jupiter giving harm to at least one indication of each of > > the houses/bhavas he occupies. It also mentions a shloka from Purana > > which says: > > > > > > " Lord Rama had to undergo vanvaas on account of Guru in Lagna, > > Guru in third sent Bali to Patala. Guru in fourth tested Satwa of > > King Harishchandra, Guru in sixth made Draupadi face Cheerharana. > > Guru > > in eighth destroyed (Nasha) Ravana, Tenth house Guru killed > > Duryodhana > > and 12th house Guru sent Pandu to forest." It further says that > > Bhishma was deprived of Kingdom on account of Guru in 2nd, King > > Dasharath had to loose his Son Rama (Putrashoka) on account of Guru > > in > > 5th. Aja Raja had to suffer separation from his wife on account of > > Guru in Seventh. Vishwamitra had to consume non eatables (Abhakshya) > > on account of his Guru in 9th." > > > > > > I would not like to respond to your other comments but would like > > to mention here that the group is formed with an intention of > > learning > > and discussing principles of astrology. I do not to your > > assumption of astrology being a rigid science not open to > > interpretation. Some of your comments are uncalled for. > > > Chandrashekhar. > > > > > > PNRazdan wrote: > > > > > > Dear Chandarshekhar, > > > There is nothing amusing in my reasoning. Parashara is quoting no > > > ordinary Muni but Lord Brahma himself which gave us the > > BPHS.Similarly > > > Prithuysas is quoting his father the great Vrahmihir which gave us > > the > > > Horasastra. Equating your shaloka quoting a nameless sage (not > > sages as > > > I said earlier, but only one sage-I was incorrect because the noun > > and > > > verb is singular) would be like showing candle to the Sun. > > > I dont think this discussion is going to serve any purpose. You are > > not > > > prepared to reveal the origin of the shalok you are so much > > depending > > > upon. By now it seems it is something casually said to which I > > attached > > > more than necessary importance. You seem to have attained the role > > of > > > some sort of a master in this group wanting your disciples to hunt > > for > > > themselves what you hint at. But I dont think this is an Ashram. > > This > > > is a forum of discussion where an academic discussion takes place > > > openly without reservations. Or possibly there may be other reasons > > for > > > you not to come out openly. > > > The moral of this story however is clear. Astrology is a science. > > It > > > has a method. Under this method several books have all along > > treated > > > Jup as a benefic planet and all interpretations are based on this > > > principle with modifications depending on its functionality, > > place, > > > lordship, strength etc etc. If you now put forth a crazy idea that > > > Jupiter is a malefic or malefic like planet ( destroys the house it > > is > > > placed in), it turns the science from a method into a madness. It > > will > > > put doubts into the minds of all astrologists while interpreting > > its > > > effects, particularly on young minds aspiring to learn jyotish. > > Already > > > I see a discussion started on these lines on this group which in my > > > opinion is energy wasted on a wrong notion. Everytime one sees Jup > > in a > > > house, a doubt will arise as to whether it is good or bad. Some > > will > > > associate it with good they had in that house and others with > > whatever > > > bad they had. > > > > > > So if you are determined to reap cheap publicity by making radical, > > > unauthenticated and unconventional "advices", you may do so as this > > is > > > a free forum. But the least I can say is that this would be the > > > greatest disservice to the field of Vedic Astrology. > > > My humble suggestion to learned members would be to accept any > > advice > > > only after their own study and research and use dependable > > commentators > > > like Raman, Rao etc.for clarifications. It would be fair to treat > > any > > > advice seriously only if it is backed up by its source so as to > > make > > > independent verification possible unless the author says it to be > > his > > > own research/ experience. > > > > > > Chandarshekharji, so let us decide to close this discussion as > > friends > > > (not by coincidence are we both having Jup as lagnesh). > > > So far I didnot discuss specifics with you since I was on a > > headlines > > > discussion. > > > Let me now respond to your last two queries.The reference to Jup in > > the > > > Second house discussion of BPHS has to be read in totality i.e all > > the > > > three shalokas 1,2 and 3 and not the 3rd only. Let me give a gist > > of > > > each here > > > First shaloka: Dhanesh in second, quadrants, trines is > > dhanvridhikarak > > > (wealth giving) in 6,8,12 opposite. > > > Second Shaloka: Benefics in 2nd house, conjunct or aspected by > > > benefics- wealth giving. Malefics in 2nd house opposite effect. > > Nowhere > > > is jupiter separated out as you claim to be.So long as it is known > > as a > > > benefic, it qualifies to be a wealth giver according to this > > shaloka. > > > Third Shaloka: If 2nd lord is Jupiter and is also posited in the > > same > > > house. And if Mars is also placed with it, then the subject becomes > > > wealthy. Period. > > > This does not mean that if Mars is not there, Jupiter alone will > > harm > > > the house. This is an implication which you are trying to make out > > > probably to make your Muni's dictum hold good. Parashara never > > means > > > it. He means to say that while a swagrahi jupiter in second is > > enough > > > to make one rich but with Mars there it adds to ones wealth. Mark > > the > > > === message truncated === > > > > > _______________________________ > > Declare Yourself - Register online to vote today! > http://vote. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 22, 2004 Report Share Posted September 22, 2004 Dear Jagannath, I do not mind being called a friend at all, even by those junior to me. Razdan is as he says of my age and Sarajit is a knowledgeable astrologer. I consider Vayovriddha and Gyanavriddha at equal level. Chandrashekhar. PNRazdan wrote: Dear Jagaanaath, I dont know whether the reference is to me as I called Chandarshekhar as a friend. As far as I am concerned, Chandarshekhar can be called as a friend since I am same age as his. Vedic culture demands respect of all elders and not favourites only. I am sad you are professing something which you have not learnt completely. Pran Razdan --- jaagaanaath <jaagaanaath > wrote: > Dear Friend, > > Chandrasekhar is not your friend. Give this man his proper > due (respect) and you should learn this thing from the beginning > as his age is twice of your age.This not my view point, this what > vedic culture is !!! > > May god bless us. > > > Jaagaanaath. > > > vedic astrology, "Sarajit Poddar" > <sarajit@s...> wrote: > > || Jaya Jagannath || > > Dear Chandrashekhar, > > > > Thank you for the comment from the puranas. > > " Lord Rama had to undergo vanvaas on account of Guru in Lagna, > Guru in third sent Bali to Patala. Guru in fourth tested Satwa of > King Harishchandra, Guru in sixth made Draupadi face Cheerharana. > Guru > in eighth destroyed (Nasha) Ravana, Tenth house Guru killed > Duryodhana > and 12th house Guru sent Pandu to forest." It further says that > Bhishma was deprived of Kingdom on account of Guru in 2nd, King > Dasharath had to loose his Son Rama (Putrashoka) on account of Guru > in > 5th. Aja Raja had to suffer separation from his wife on account of > Guru in Seventh. Vishwamitra had to consume non eatables (Abhakshya) > on account of his Guru in 9th." > > > > Regards > > Sarajit > > - > > Chandrashekhar > > PNRazdan > > Cc: Prafulla Gang ; vedic astrology > > Wednesday, September 22, 2004 5:00 AM > > Re: [vedic astrology] Re: 2nd house Jup in various > roles--to Chandraji > > > > > > Dear Razdan, > > > > Read BPHS again, Sage Parashara states opinion of Narada in > Ghatika Lagna shloka, refers to opinions of the learned (not Brahma) > in shloka 15 Ch.11, shloka 15 Ch.12. First shloka of Bhava Pada > Adhyaya again mentions that he is telling the special effects of Pada > as told by other Sages (again not Brahma). He he also mentions > opinion > of others in first shloka of Karaka Adhyaya. The great Sage has in > almost all Adhyayas given credit to other learneds in one or other of > the shlokas, besides what Maitreya himself said to Sage Parashara in > the beginning of AshtakavargaAdhyaya.InShloka1ofthatAdhyayaBR > Maitreya clearly says that Parashara has given opinions of many > Rishis > and Acharyas. So saying that Parashara only told what had been > revealed to him by Lord Brahma would be showing disrespect to the > Great sage who had the magnanimity to give credit to other Rishis and > Acharyas. > > > > Since you are questioning veracity and authority of the shlokas > that I quoted, I would like to give you the Texts in which the > shlokas > appear. If you read Tatvapradeepjataka and Chamatkaar Chintamani you > will find them. The first text has the shlokas and the later again > mentions same shlokas. If you read Chamatkar Chintamani further you > will find Jupiter giving harm to at least one indication of each of > the houses/bhavas he occupies. It also mentions a shloka from Purana > which says: > > > > " Lord Rama had to undergo vanvaas on account of Guru in Lagna, > Guru in third sent Bali to Patala. Guru in fourth tested Satwa of > King Harishchandra, Guru in sixth made Draupadi face Cheerharana. > Guru > in eighth destroyed (Nasha) Ravana, Tenth house Guru killed > Duryodhana > and 12th house Guru sent Pandu to forest." It further says that > Bhishma was deprived of Kingdom on account of Guru in 2nd, King > Dasharath had to loose his Son Rama (Putrashoka) on account of Guru > in > 5th. Aja Raja had to suffer separation from his wife on account of > Guru in Seventh. Vishwamitra had to consume non eatables (Abhakshya) > on account of his Guru in 9th." > > > > I would not like to respond to your other comments but would like > to mention here that the group is formed with an intention of > learning > and discussing principles of astrology. I do not to your > assumption of astrology being a rigid science not open to > interpretation. Some of your comments are uncalled for. > > Chandrashekhar. > > > > PNRazdan wrote: > > > > Dear Chandarshekhar, > > There is nothing amusing in my reasoning. Parashara is quoting no > > ordinary Muni but Lord Brahma himself which gave us the > BPHS.Similarly > > Prithuysas is quoting his father the great Vrahmihir which gave us > the > > Horasastra. Equating your shaloka quoting a nameless sage (not > sages as > > I said earlier, but only one sage-I was incorrect because the noun > and > > verb is singular) would be like showing candle to the Sun. > > I dont think this discussion is going to serve any purpose. You are > not > > prepared to reveal the origin of the shalok you are so much > depending > > upon. By now it seems it is something casually said to which I > attached > > more than necessary importance. You seem to have attained the role > of > > some sort of a master in this group wanting your disciples to hunt > for > > themselves what you hint at. But I dont think this is an Ashram. > This > > is a forum of discussion where an academic discussion takes place > > openly without reservations. Or possibly there may be other reasons > for > > you not to come out openly. > > The moral of this story however is clear. Astrology is a science. > It > > has a method. Under this method several books have all along > treated > > Jup as a benefic planet and all interpretations are based on this > > principle with modifications depending on its functionality, > place, > > lordship, strength etc etc. If you now put forth a crazy idea that > > Jupiter is a malefic or malefic like planet ( destroys the house it > is > > placed in), it turns the science from a method into a madness. It > will > > put doubts into the minds of all astrologists while interpreting > its > > effects, particularly on young minds aspiring to learn jyotish. > Already > > I see a discussion started on these lines on this group which in my > > opinion is energy wasted on a wrong notion. Everytime one sees Jup > in a > > house, a doubt will arise as to whether it is good or bad. Some > will > > associate it with good they had in that house and others with > whatever > > bad they had. > > > > So if you are determined to reap cheap publicity by making radical, > > unauthenticated and unconventional "advices", you may do so as this > is > > a free forum. But the least I can say is that this would be the > > greatest disservice to the field of Vedic Astrology. > > My humble suggestion to learned members would be to accept any > advice > > only after their own study and research and use dependable > commentators > > like Raman, Rao etc.for clarifications. It would be fair to treat > any > > advice seriously only if it is backed up by its source so as to > make > > independent verification possible unless the author says it to be > his > > own research/ experience. > > > > Chandarshekharji, so let us decide to close this discussion as > friends > > (not by coincidence are we both having Jup as lagnesh). > > So far I didnot discuss specifics with you since I was on a > headlines > > discussion. > > Let me now respond to your last two queries.The reference to Jup in > the > > Second house discussion of BPHS has to be read in totality i.e all > the > > three shalokas 1,2 and 3 and not the 3rd only. Let me give a gist > of > > each here > > First shaloka: Dhanesh in second, quadrants, trines is > dhanvridhikarak > > (wealth giving) in 6,8,12 opposite. > > Second Shaloka: Benefics in 2nd house, conjunct or aspected by > > benefics- wealth giving. Malefics in 2nd house opposite effect. > Nowhere > > is jupiter separated out as you claim to be.So long as it is known > as a > > benefic, it qualifies to be a wealth giver according to this > shaloka. > > Third Shaloka: If 2nd lord is Jupiter and is also posited in the > same > > house. And if Mars is also placed with it, then the subject becomes > > wealthy. Period. > > This does not mean that if Mars is not there, Jupiter alone will > harm > > the house. This is an implication which you are trying to make out > > probably to make your Muni's dictum hold good. Parashara never > means > > it. He means to say that while a swagrahi jupiter in second is > enough > > to make one rich but with Mars there it adds to ones wealth. Mark > the > === message truncated === _______________________________ Declare Yourself - Register online to vote today! http://vote. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 24, 2004 Report Share Posted September 24, 2004 Dear Chandrashekharji, Thank for your civility.According to Chanakya, father should treat his children as like as friends after the age 16 that does not mean the otherway around. This is a pity that how we are forgetting our own root/culture. Nothing more . May god bless us and show the proer way in life. Jaagaanaath. vedic astrology, Chandrashekhar <boxdel> wrote: > Dear Jagannath, > I do not mind being called a friend at all, even by those junior to me. > Razdan is as he says of my age and Sarajit is a knowledgeable > astrologer. I consider Vayovriddha and Gyanavriddha at equal level. > Chandrashekhar. > > PNRazdan wrote: > > > Dear Jagaanaath, > > I dont know whether the reference is to me as I called Chandarshekhar > > as a friend. > > As far as I am concerned, Chandarshekhar can be called as a friend > > since I am same age as his. > > Vedic culture demands respect of all elders and not favourites only. I > > am sad you are professing something which you have not learnt > > completely. > > > > Pran Razdan > > > > --- jaagaanaath <jaagaanaath> wrote: > > > > > Dear Friend, > > > > > > Chandrasekhar is not your friend. Give this man his proper > > > due (respect) and you should learn this thing from the beginning > > > as his age is twice of your age.This not my view point, this what > > > vedic culture is !!! > > > > > > May god bless us. > > > > > > > > > Jaagaanaath. > > > > > > > > > vedic astrology, "Sarajit Poddar" > > > <sarajit@s...> wrote: > > > > || Jaya Jagannath || > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar, > > > > > > > > Thank you for the comment from the puranas. > > > > " Lord Rama had to undergo vanvaas on account of Guru in Lagna, > > > Guru in third sent Bali to Patala. Guru in fourth tested Satwa of > > > King Harishchandra, Guru in sixth made Draupadi face Cheerharana. > > > Guru > > > in eighth destroyed (Nasha) Ravana, Tenth house Guru killed > > > Duryodhana > > > and 12th house Guru sent Pandu to forest." It further says that > > > Bhishma was deprived of Kingdom on account of Guru in 2nd, King > > > Dasharath had to loose his Son Rama (Putrashoka) on account of Guru > > > in > > > 5th. Aja Raja had to suffer separation from his wife on account of > > > Guru in Seventh. Vishwamitra had to consume non eatables (Abhakshya) > > > on account of his Guru in 9th." > > > > > > > > Regards > > > > Sarajit > > > > - > > > > Chandrashekhar > > > > PNRazdan > > > > Cc: Prafulla Gang ; vedic astrology > > > > Wednesday, September 22, 2004 5:00 AM > > > > Re: [vedic astrology] Re: 2nd house Jup in various > > > roles--to Chandraji > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Razdan, > > > > > > > > Read BPHS again, Sage Parashara states opinion of Narada in > > > Ghatika Lagna shloka, refers to opinions of the learned (not Brahma) > > > in shloka 15 Ch.11, shloka 15 Ch.12. First shloka of Bhava Pada > > > Adhyaya again mentions that he is telling the special effects of Pada > > > as told by other Sages (again not Brahma). He he also mentions > > > opinion > > > of others in first shloka of Karaka Adhyaya. The great Sage has in > > > almost all Adhyayas given credit to other learneds in one or other of > > > the shlokas, besides what Maitreya himself said to Sage Parashara in > > > the beginning of AshtakavargaAdhyaya.InShloka1ofthatAdhyayaBR > > > Maitreya clearly says that Parashara has given opinions of many > > > Rishis > > > and Acharyas. So saying that Parashara only told what had been > > > revealed to him by Lord Brahma would be showing disrespect to the > > > Great sage who had the magnanimity to give credit to other Rishis and > > > Acharyas. > > > > > > > > Since you are questioning veracity and authority of the shlokas > > > that I quoted, I would like to give you the Texts in which the > > > shlokas > > > appear. If you read Tatvapradeepjataka and Chamatkaar Chintamani you > > > will find them. The first text has the shlokas and the later again > > > mentions same shlokas. If you read Chamatkar Chintamani further you > > > will find Jupiter giving harm to at least one indication of each of > > > the houses/bhavas he occupies. It also mentions a shloka from Purana > > > which says: > > > > > > > > " Lord Rama had to undergo vanvaas on account of Guru in Lagna, > > > Guru in third sent Bali to Patala. Guru in fourth tested Satwa of > > > King Harishchandra, Guru in sixth made Draupadi face Cheerharana. > > > Guru > > > in eighth destroyed (Nasha) Ravana, Tenth house Guru killed > > > Duryodhana > > > and 12th house Guru sent Pandu to forest." It further says that > > > Bhishma was deprived of Kingdom on account of Guru in 2nd, King > > > Dasharath had to loose his Son Rama (Putrashoka) on account of Guru > > > in > > > 5th. Aja Raja had to suffer separation from his wife on account of > > > Guru in Seventh. Vishwamitra had to consume non eatables (Abhakshya) > > > on account of his Guru in 9th." > > > > > > > > I would not like to respond to your other comments but would like > > > to mention here that the group is formed with an intention of > > > learning > > > and discussing principles of astrology. I do not to your > > > assumption of astrology being a rigid science not open to > > > interpretation. Some of your comments are uncalled for. > > > > Chandrashekhar. > > > > > > > > PNRazdan wrote: > > > > > > > > Dear Chandarshekhar, > > > > There is nothing amusing in my reasoning. Parashara is quoting no > > > > ordinary Muni but Lord Brahma himself which gave us the > > > BPHS.Similarly > > > > Prithuysas is quoting his father the great Vrahmihir which gave us > > > the > > > > Horasastra. Equating your shaloka quoting a nameless sage (not > > > sages as > > > > I said earlier, but only one sage-I was incorrect because the noun > > > and > > > > verb is singular) would be like showing candle to the Sun. > > > > I dont think this discussion is going to serve any purpose. You are > > > not > > > > prepared to reveal the origin of the shalok you are so much > > > depending > > > > upon. By now it seems it is something casually said to which I > > > attached > > > > more than necessary importance. You seem to have attained the role > > > of > > > > some sort of a master in this group wanting your disciples to hunt > > > for > > > > themselves what you hint at. But I dont think this is an Ashram. > > > This > > > > is a forum of discussion where an academic discussion takes place > > > > openly without reservations. Or possibly there may be other reasons > > > for > > > > you not to come out openly. > > > > The moral of this story however is clear. Astrology is a science. > > > It > > > > has a method. Under this method several books have all along > > > treated > > > > Jup as a benefic planet and all interpretations are based on this > > > > principle with modifications depending on its functionality, > > > place, > > > > lordship, strength etc etc. If you now put forth a crazy idea that > > > > Jupiter is a malefic or malefic like planet ( destroys the house it > > > is > > > > placed in), it turns the science from a method into a madness. It > > > will > > > > put doubts into the minds of all astrologists while interpreting > > > its > > > > effects, particularly on young minds aspiring to learn jyotish. > > > Already > > > > I see a discussion started on these lines on this group which in my > > > > opinion is energy wasted on a wrong notion. Everytime one sees Jup > > > in a > > > > house, a doubt will arise as to whether it is good or bad. Some > > > will > > > > associate it with good they had in that house and others with > > > whatever > > > > bad they had. > > > > > > > > So if you are determined to reap cheap publicity by making radical, > > > > unauthenticated and unconventional "advices", you may do so as this > > > is > > > > a free forum. But the least I can say is that this would be the > > > > greatest disservice to the field of Vedic Astrology. > > > > My humble suggestion to learned members would be to accept any > > > advice > > > > only after their own study and research and use dependable > > > commentators > > > > like Raman, Rao etc.for clarifications. It would be fair to treat > > > any > > > > advice seriously only if it is backed up by its source so as to > > > make > > > > independent verification possible unless the author says it to be > > > his > > > > own research/ experience. > > > > > > > > Chandarshekharji, so let us decide to close this discussion as > > > friends > > > > (not by coincidence are we both having Jup as lagnesh). > > > > So far I didnot discuss specifics with you since I was on a > > > headlines > > > > discussion. > > > > Let me now respond to your last two queries.The reference to Jup in > > > the > > > > Second house discussion of BPHS has to be read in totality i.e all > > > the > > > > three shalokas 1,2 and 3 and not the 3rd only. Let me give a gist > > > of > > > > each here > > > > First shaloka: Dhanesh in second, quadrants, trines is > > > dhanvridhikarak > > > > (wealth giving) in 6,8,12 opposite. > > > > Second Shaloka: Benefics in 2nd house, conjunct or aspected by > > > > benefics- wealth giving. Malefics in 2nd house opposite effect. > > > Nowhere > > > > is jupiter separated out as you claim to be.So long as it is known > > > as a > > > > benefic, it qualifies to be a wealth giver according to this > > > shaloka. > > > > Third Shaloka: If 2nd lord is Jupiter and is also posited in the > > > same > > > > house. And if Mars is also placed with it, then the subject becomes > > > > wealthy. Period. > > > > This does not mean that if Mars is not there, Jupiter alone will > > > harm > > > > the house. This is an implication which you are trying to make out > > > > probably to make your Muni's dictum hold good. Parashara never > > > means > > > > it. He means to say that while a swagrahi jupiter in second is > > > enough > > > > to make one rich but with Mars there it adds to ones wealth. Mark > > > the > > > > > === message truncated === > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________ > > > > Declare Yourself - Register online to vote today! > > http://vote. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ....... May Jupiter's light shine on us ....... > > > > > > > > > > * Sponsor* > > > > click here > > <http://us.ard./SIG=129ce00t5/M=295196.4901138.6071305.3001176/D=groups\ /S=1705082686:HM/EXP=1095944143/A=2128215/R=0/SIG=10se96mf6/*http://companion.ya\ hoo.com> > > > > > > > > ------ > > * 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.