[Vedavyasa] Kalachakra Dasa Analysis of Sri Jayendra Saraswathi

November 29, 2004

Dear Narasimha,

Could you point me to the shloka which tells Aries moving on to

Sagittarius is called Simhavalokana Gati by Parashara? I do not find

the shloka in my edition of BPHS. I find the gatis mentioned by Rasis

only in shloka 99 and 100 Chapter 48. The shlokas mention Sagittarius

jumping to Aries and Pisces jumping over to Scorpio, but not the

reverse as indicated by you. Perhaps you have some other edition.

Kindly post the shlokas, so that the confusion about using only gatis

sanctioned by Parashara by specific mention being necessary, as against

using those indicated by him though not specifically mentioned is

removed.

Chandrashekhar.

Narasimha P.V.R. Rao wrote:

Namaste Chandrashekhar ji,

I am afraid your understanding is

not right. The movements from Sg to Ar, Ar to Sg, Pi to Sc and Sc to Pi

were all called Simhavalokana gati by Parasara. He did mention all of

them.

If you say that jumps like Cn to Pi

or Ge to Cp are acceptable, I can certainly not agree. My position is

that Parasara would have mentioned all special gatis.

May Jupiter's light shine on us,

Narasimha

-----

Original Message -----

Chandrashekhar

To:

vyasa

Cc:

vedic astrology

; prajakta pole ; Raman

Suprajarama

Sent:

Tuesday, November 23, 2004 2:50 PM

Subject:

Re: [Vedavyasa] Re: Kalachakra Dasa Analysis of Sri Jayendra Saraswathi

Dear Narasimha,

You are using a different approach to Antardasha calculation for

Kalachakra dasha which has been elaborated by you at length. I have one

query. You have said, in support of the argument that since the leap

from Ge to Cp is not mentioned, that can not be the order. My question

is that if we assume nothing out side the leaps mentioned should be the

correct order for Antardasha, then same parameter should also exist in

the Mahadasha. Now, to my knowledge, and I could be wrong, three leaps

are mentioned in texts. These are Manduka, Markati of Turaga and

Simhavalokana. These are all leaps backwards, first is a leap skipping

one sign, next going back one sign and third is skipping more than one

sign backwards. ( There are difference in opinion between various

authorities on exactly what do these constitute but let us not

complicate the subject at this point). Now having accepted these as the

only possible movements allowable, how do we interpret the movement

from Mesha to Dhanu as for 2nd pada of Dhanishtha? Is such a leap

mentioned by either Parashara or Shiva or any other text? Not being

mentioned in the texts do we take the Mahadasha order to be wrong?

Another point I would like to know from you ,Raman and Rama Naryayana

is what parameters are used to calculate the Bhukta and Bhogya

Mahadasha at birth? The question might appear to be very elementary to

all you worthies, but since the Purnaayu is applicable to Nakshtra

Charana, I would like to know whether the proportion is applied to the

first Mahadasha or the entire Purnaayu.

Chandrashekhar.

November 30, 2004

Dear Sri Chandrasekhar,

Namasthe!

The movement of Aries to Sagittarius is valid Simhavalokana. A mention is

made in Jataka Parijatha.

Om Tat Sat,

Raman Suprajarama

______

Chandrashekhar [boxdel]

Tuesday, November 30, 2004 1:07 AM

Narasimha P.V.R. Rao

Cc: vedic astrology; prajakta pole; Raman Suprajarama

Re: [vedic astrology] Re: [Vedavyasa] Re: Kalachakra Dasa Analysis

of Sri Jayendra Saraswathi

Dear Narasimha,

Could you point me to the shloka which tells Aries moving on to Sagittarius

is called Simhavalokana Gati by Parashara? I do not find the shloka in my

edition of BPHS. I find the gatis mentioned by Rasis only in shloka 99 and

100 Chapter 48. The shlokas mention Sagittarius jumping to Aries and Pisces

jumping over to Scorpio, but not the reverse as indicated by you. Perhaps

you have some other edition. Kindly post the shlokas, so that the confusion

about using only gatis sanctioned by Parashara by specific mention being

necessary, as against using those indicated by him though not specifically

mentioned is removed.

Chandrashekhar.

Narasimha P.V.R. Rao wrote:

Namaste Chandrashekhar ji,

I am afraid your understanding is not right. The movements from Sg to Ar, Ar

to Sg, Pi to Sc and Sc to Pi were all called Simhavalokana gati by Parasara.

He did mention all of them.

If you say that jumps like Cn to Pi or Ge to Cp are acceptable, I can

certainly not agree. My position is that Parasara would have mentioned all

special gatis.

May Jupiter's light shine on us,

Narasimha

-

Chandrashekhar

vyasa

Cc: vedic astrology ; prajakta pole ; Raman Suprajarama

Tuesday, November 23, 2004 2:50 PM

Re: [Vedavyasa] Re: Kalachakra Dasa Analysis of Sri Jayendra

Saraswathi

Dear Narasimha,

You are using a different approach to Antardasha calculation for Kalachakra

dasha which has been elaborated by you at length. I have one query. You have

said, in support of the argument that since the leap from Ge to Cp is not

mentioned, that can not be the order. My question is that if we assume

nothing out side the leaps mentioned should be the correct order for

Antardasha, then same parameter should also exist in the Mahadasha. Now, to

my knowledge, and I could be wrong, three leaps are mentioned in texts.

These are Manduka, Markati of Turaga and Simhavalokana. These are all leaps

backwards, first is a leap skipping one sign, next going back one sign and

third is skipping more than one sign backwards. ( There are difference in

opinion between various authorities on exactly what do these constitute but

let us not complicate the subject at this point). Now having accepted these

as the only possible movements allowable, how do we interpret the movement

from Mesha to Dhanu as for 2nd pada of Dhanishtha? Is such a leap mentioned

by either Parashara or Shiva or any other text? Not being mentioned in the

texts do we take the Mahadasha order to be wrong?

Another point I would like to know from you ,Raman and Rama Naryayana is

what parameters are used to calculate the Bhukta and Bhogya Mahadasha at

birth? The question might appear to be very elementary to all you worthies,

but since the Purnaayu is applicable to Nakshtra Charana, I would like to

know whether the proportion is applied to the first Mahadasha or the entire

Purnaayu.

Chandrashekhar.

|| Om Tat Sat || Sarvam Sri Krishnaarpanamastu ||

______•

vedic astrology/

•

vedic astrology

•

November 30, 2004

Dear Raman,

I am aware of that. I was referring to comment about BPHS not mentioning

certain movement, specifically, being the sole argument for treating

Antardasha in a certain order.

As a matter of fact, I am of the opinion that the sages gave the

principles and it is not necessary that if a specific motion is not

mentioned in that form, it means that it is a not valid at all. If one

takes the motions mentioned by Rasi names literally in individual

shlokas as inviolate then, for some Nakshatra Padas the native will have

every motion as Markati gati. Would this be right? I would take it to be

a gati which is reverse of the normal progression of the Dasha order,

which change direction depending on whether the Nakshtra is Savya or

Apasavya.

Some formula given in the shlokas, if taken literally, contradict the

statement made in other shlokas in the same text.If you look at the

formula given to find Navamsha under Kalachakra in BPHS and the shloka

about Deha being representative of the Navamsha Rasi, my meaning would

be clear.

How does one take individual shlokas to be applied in Toto, if one does

so without understanding the intent behind the shlokas rather than

opting for the literal translation? This is in accordance with the

standard procedure (related to reading Hindu Shastras) that is to be

adopted when one finds apparent difference between statements of two

recognized authorities. You rationalize (Saamanjasya) them by finding

the common ground or basic principle underlying the shlokas. I trust you

understand my point of view.

Regards,

Chandrashekhar.

Raman Suprajarama wrote:

>Dear Sri Chandrasekhar,

>

>Namasthe!

>

>The movement of Aries to Sagittarius is valid Simhavalokana. A mention is

>made in Jataka Parijatha.

>

>Om Tat Sat,

>

>Raman Suprajarama

>______

>Chandrashekhar [boxdel]

>Tuesday, November 30, 2004 1:07 AM

>Narasimha P.V.R. Rao

>Cc: vedic astrology; prajakta pole; Raman Suprajarama

>Re: [vedic astrology] Re: [Vedavyasa] Re: Kalachakra Dasa Analysis

>of Sri Jayendra Saraswathi

>

>Dear Narasimha,

>Could you point me to the shloka which tells Aries moving on to Sagittarius

>is called Simhavalokana Gati by Parashara? I do not find the shloka in my

>edition of BPHS. I find the gatis mentioned by Rasis only in shloka 99 and

>100 Chapter 48. The shlokas mention Sagittarius jumping to Aries and Pisces

>jumping over to Scorpio, but not the reverse as indicated by you. Perhaps

>you have some other edition. Kindly post the shlokas, so that the confusion

>about using only gatis sanctioned by Parashara by specific mention being

>necessary, as against using those indicated by him though not specifically

>mentioned is removed.

>Chandrashekhar.

>

>Narasimha P.V.R. Rao wrote:

>

>Namaste Chandrashekhar ji,

>

>I am afraid your understanding is not right. The movements from Sg to Ar, Ar

>to Sg, Pi to Sc and Sc to Pi were all called Simhavalokana gati by Parasara.

>He did mention all of them.

>

>If you say that jumps like Cn to Pi or Ge to Cp are acceptable, I can

>certainly not agree. My position is that Parasara would have mentioned all

>special gatis.

>

>May Jupiter's light shine on us,

>Narasimha

>-

>Chandrashekhar

>vyasa

>Cc: vedic astrology ; prajakta pole ; Raman Suprajarama

>Tuesday, November 23, 2004 2:50 PM

>Re: [Vedavyasa] Re: Kalachakra Dasa Analysis of Sri Jayendra

>Saraswathi

>

>Dear Narasimha,

>You are using a different approach to Antardasha calculation for Kalachakra

>dasha which has been elaborated by you at length. I have one query. You have

>said, in support of the argument that since the leap from Ge to Cp is not

>mentioned, that can not be the order. My question is that if we assume

>nothing out side the leaps mentioned should be the correct order for

>Antardasha, then same parameter should also exist in the Mahadasha. Now, to

>my knowledge, and I could be wrong, three leaps are mentioned in texts.

>These are Manduka, Markati of Turaga and Simhavalokana. These are all leaps

>backwards, first is a leap skipping one sign, next going back one sign and

>third is skipping more than one sign backwards. ( There are difference in

>opinion between various authorities on exactly what do these constitute but

>let us not complicate the subject at this point). Now having accepted these

>as the only possible movements allowable, how do we interpret the movement

>from Mesha to Dhanu as for 2nd pada of Dhanishtha? Is such a leap mentioned

>by either Parashara or Shiva or any other text? Not being mentioned in the

>texts do we take the Mahadasha order to be wrong?

>

>Another point I would like to know from you ,Raman and Rama Naryayana is

>what parameters are used to calculate the Bhukta and Bhogya Mahadasha at

>birth? The question might appear to be very elementary to all you worthies,

>but since the Purnaayu is applicable to Nakshtra Charana, I would like to

>know whether the proportion is applied to the first Mahadasha or the entire

>Purnaayu.

>Chandrashekhar.

>

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

>

> Sponsor

>

>______

> Links

>•

>vedic astrology/

>

>•

>vedic astrology

>

>•

>

November 30, 2004

Namaste Chandrashekhar ji,

Please refer to verse 100 in chapter 46 (in the Santhanam version of BPHS). It

says "meena vrischikayoh chaapa meshayoh saimhiki gatih". This means that the

leap between Pisces and Scorpio and that between Sagittarius and Aries is

called Saimhiki.

Chaapa meshayoh means between dhanus and mesha. It covers Ar to Sg and Sg to Ar both.

When Parasara went over some of these leaps for further details, he did not

mention Ar to Sg. You seem to be reading too much into that non-mention. But he

clearly covered both the cases in verse 46-100.

May Jupiter's light shine on us,

Narasimha

-

Chandrashekhar

Narasimha P.V.R. Rao

Cc: vedic astrology ; prajakta pole ; Raman Suprajarama

Monday, November 29, 2004 2:37 PM

Re: [vedic astrology] Re: [Vedavyasa] Re: Kalachakra Dasa Analysis of

Sri Jayendra Saraswathi

Dear Narasimha,Could you point me to the shloka which tells Aries moving on to

Sagittarius is called Simhavalokana Gati by Parashara? I do not find the shloka

in my edition of BPHS. I find the gatis mentioned by Rasis only in shloka 99 and

100 Chapter 48. The shlokas mention Sagittarius jumping to Aries and Pisces

jumping over to Scorpio, but not the reverse as indicated by you. Perhaps you

have some other edition. Kindly post the shlokas, so that the confusion about

using only gatis sanctioned by Parashara by specific mention being necessary,

as against using those indicated by him though not specifically mentioned is

removed.Chandrashekhar.Narasimha P.V.R. Rao wrote:

Namaste Chandrashekhar ji,

I am afraid your understanding is not right. The movements from Sg to Ar, Ar to

Sg, Pi to Sc and Sc to Pi were all called Simhavalokana gati by Parasara. He

did mention all of them.

If you say that jumps like Cn to Pi or Ge to Cp are acceptable, I can certainly

not agree. My position is that Parasara would have mentioned all special gatis.

May Jupiter's light shine on us,

Narasimha

-

Chandrashekhar

vyasa

Cc: vedic astrology ; prajakta pole ; Raman Suprajarama

Tuesday, November 23, 2004 2:50 PM

Re: [Vedavyasa] Re: Kalachakra Dasa Analysis of Sri Jayendra Saraswathi

Dear Narasimha,You are using a different approach to Antardasha calculation for

Kalachakra dasha which has been elaborated by you at length. I have one query.

You have said, in support of the argument that since the leap from Ge to Cp is

not mentioned, that can not be the order. My question is that if we assume

nothing out side the leaps mentioned should be the correct order for

Antardasha, then same parameter should also exist in the Mahadasha. Now, to my

knowledge, and I could be wrong, three leaps are mentioned in texts. These are

Manduka, Markati of Turaga and Simhavalokana. These are all leaps backwards,

first is a leap skipping one sign, next going back one sign and third is

skipping more than one sign backwards. ( There are difference in opinion

between various authorities on exactly what do these constitute but let us not

complicate the subject at this point). Now having accepted these as the only

possible movements allowable, how do we interpret the movement from Mesha to

Dhanu as for 2nd pada of Dhanishtha? Is such a leap mentioned by either

Parashara or Shiva or any other text? Not being mentioned in the texts do we

take the Mahadasha order to be wrong?Another point I would like to know from

you ,Raman and Rama Naryayana is what parameters are used to calculate the

Bhukta and Bhogya Mahadasha at birth? The question might appear to be very

elementary to all you worthies, but since the Purnaayu is applicable to

Nakshtra Charana, I would like to know whether the proportion is applied to the

first Mahadasha or the entire Purnaayu. Chandrashekhar.Archives:

vedic astrologyGroup info:

vedic astrology/info.htmlTo UNSUBSCRIBE: Blank

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

shine on us .......

December 1, 2004

Dear Narasimha,

Perhaps, I was not able to convey my intent behind the question.

I did not say that it is only restricted to these two gatis, rather my

intent was to convey that gatis other than those specifically indicated

by Parashara could also be considered, in case of Antardashas so long

as they are in the same order ( as the Mahadasha order for the

Nakshatra pada under consideration) and begin from the Mahadasha in

which they are drawn, and only that the gatis so created would not

qualify as either of the three Gatis specified by Parashara and also

would not give their effects.

By the way, if I remember right, in translation Santanam has talked

about Pisces to Scorpio and Sagittarius to Mesha gatis only, and not

vise-a-versa, and not as indicated by you. Further, the results that

Parashara indicates in shlokas 117 and 118 makes it clear that he is

talking about Sagittarius to Mesha and not vice-a-versa. Jatakadesh

marg does give a variation when it says that for Chara Rasi they would

start from the same Rasi and for others it would start from Trine to

the Rasi in whose Mahadasha, the Antardashas are to be calculated.

However, no body indicates that the order of Antardasha would change

from that of the Mahadasha order for a particular Nakshatra pada.

Parashara has already indicated how the Antardashas are to be drawn and

their order. He does not speak of changing order of Antardashas but

says they would begin with Antardasha of Mahadasha Lord and would be

same as the Mahadasha order.

Thus order of Antardashas, other than those following natural order of

the Mahadashas for a Nakshatra Pada, can not be justified on the logic

of a specific gati being not mentioned by Parashara. Those movements

would simply not qualify as either of the three gatis. While specifying

types of Gatis, Parashara also said "Banacch Navaparyantam gatiH

Simhavalokanam" at shloka 98 indicating it is not restricted to only

Meena-Vrishchika and Sagittarius-Aries. It is a different matter that

they are not observed in Mahadasha order. They might, however, occur in

some Antar or Pratyantar Dasha order.

Chandrashekhar.

Narasimha P.V.R. Rao wrote:

Namaste Chandrashekhar ji,

Please refer to verse 100 in chapter

46 (in the Santhanam version of BPHS). It says "meena vrischikayoh

chaapa meshayoh saimhiki gatih". This means that the leap between

Pisces and Scorpio and that between Sagittarius and Aries is called

Saimhiki.

Chaapa meshayoh means between dhanus

and mesha. It covers Ar to Sg and Sg to Ar both.

When Parasara went over some of

these leaps for further details, he did not mention Ar to Sg. You seem

to be reading too much into that non-mention. But he clearly covered

both the cases in verse 46-100.

May Jupiter's light shine on us,

Narasimha

-----

Original Message -----

Chandrashekhar

To:

Narasimha

P.V.R. Rao