Houses in Divisional Charts/Shri Narasimha

[Guest guest]

Dear Narasimha ji

 

I did not make a stand alone statement - ''deform basics''. I have

given logical arguments to support this - based on

Rashis/Divisions/Bhavas as defined by sage Parashara.

 

If you can give objective explanations, my statement will get

weakened and destroyed in the process.

 

Now the case of twins was given to rule out your possibility of

explaining twins using bhavas. But I should politely tell you that,

even if it was possible, the case of twins does not stand logical in

this debate. We are debating the authenticity of bhavas in

divisions.How to explain twins is a totally different issue. There

may be numerous ways that we are not aware

of.(For example Bhratri karaka, as Parakash has mentioned or various

other Lagnas as you have mentioned).On the other hand you assume

twins can be explained only if we use bhavas.

 

Twin issue is like this - Two individuals A & B are debating on an

issue. Both are aware that another person C has reached a place in

30 minutes. They also know it is only possible (to reach in 30

minutes) by taking a particular route. Mr. A also considers this as

the only route available to reach the place. Both A and B agree that

there are constraints preventing a vehicle to pass on this route On

the other hand B opines - there can be other routes as well - but

not known to us. A

is of strong opinion ''C has reached in 30 minutes''- hence the

known route is the only route.

 

Thus first we should stick to the point of debate and verify

definitions given by Parashara.

 

Thus I repeat my doubts.

 

a) If we can see/have to see all matters from a single place and if

it is just a division - why do we want to take a different view here

and give importance to it alone?. If it is not important -how can we

see everything there (unlike shastyamsha sage did not hint it for

general matters).

 

b) Can we find vargottama for a ''bhava'' in navamsha? For a bhava

in drekkana ? If not why is it seen only for a Rashi Bhava lord? Can

we see the navamsha of a ''bhava lord '' in Shastyamsha? - If not -

from where do I see the bhava for the statement -''Bhava lord

occupying benefic shastyamsha''.

 

Thus it is not a bhava for any division - It is the Bhava for the

Jataka. Bhava nirupana will give results for any matter pertaining

to a Jataka.

 

Now sixteen divisions can be used for different purposes. The

relevant bhavas for various matters have to be first ascertained

and the said bhava lord's stature has to be seen from the respective

divisions as advised by sage.

 

We have seen from Saravali that lagna's divisions can give

individual results for physique. Similarly each bhavas lord can also

give different results based on the divisions they fall. We have to

get the relevant texts.

 

Ignoring these questions will be disheartening.

 

Thanks

Pradeep

 

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

<pvr@c...> wrote:

> Dear Pradeep,

>

> > Thus the riddle of twin is just one among the numerous ones

> > which is difficult to solve.This does not mean we can deform

basics.

>

> I too can suggest that YOU are "deforming basics". But, unlike

you, I realize that it is against the decorum of an intelligent

debate.

>

> As far as I can see, the approach you are advocating (i.e. taking

no houses in divisions) does NOT have enough degrees of freedom to

distinguish between twins or closely born people. If you disagree,

please explain the glaring difference I mentioned between the two

twins whose charts I gave, using your approach!

>

> > Ourselves getting satisfied with analysis cannot be a logical

> > conclusion or assertion.

>

> Whether my analysis of some twins is correct or not, the approach

I advocate atleast has the ability to distinguish between twins in a

big way. I don't see that ability in your approach. That is my whole

point.

>

> > Thanks for the data.But for twins - The chart given by ennaye

> > proves your claim insufficient.When taken through Ceasaran

section,

> > even shastiamshas can be the same.

>

> You are jumping to hasty conclusions based on the charts of 5

month old twins, about whom we know precious little yet!

>

> If lagna and 9 planets are in the same signs, do you say the

charts are identical? Aren't hora lagna, ghati lagna, pranapada

lagna, varnada lagna etc good for nothing? Was Parasara foolish to

teach them?

>

> In the charts given by ennaye on vedic astrology list, pranapada

lagna changes sign even in rasi. Pranapada lagna shows the

manifestation of life force. With it in different signs in rasi, the

two twins can have totally different temperaments.

>

> The babies in the charts given by ennaye are just 5 months old. We

don't really know if their fortunes are significantly different. We

have to wait and find out. The physical differences in temperament

etc can be explained using the pranapada lagna change in rasi. If GL

and HL are different in some divisions, there can be some status

differencesin associated areas. But, if lagna in shashtyamsa is the

same, I expect them to have similar karmas. Bottomline is that these

babies are too small and we don't yet know about their life patterns.

>

> On the other hand, the twin example I gave belongs to aduclts

about whom things are known. There is a huge difference between the

twins and it can be beautifully explained using divisions as charts

with houses. Your approach does not have the ability to even attempt

to explain.

>

> May Jupiter's light shine on us,

> Narasimha

> -------------------------------

> Free Jyotish lessons (MP3): http://vedicastro.home.comcast.net

> Free Jyotish software (Windows): http://www.VedicAstrologer.org

> SJC website: http://www.SriJagannath.org

> -------------------------------

>

> > Dear Narasimha ji

> >

> > I am not agreeing to lagnas navamsha and features just for the

case

> > of twins.It is applicable for any jataka and has been my view

always.

> >

> > Ourselves getting satisfied with analysis cannot be a logical

> > conclusion or assertion.In the case of Pope we have seen this.If

you

> > agree with this, fine.Else please read the following.

> >

> > Thanks for the data.But for twins - The chart given by ennaye

> > proves your claim insufficient.When taken through Ceasaran

section,

> > even shastiamshas can be the same.

> >

> > Also when children are born for different parents(quoting

> > Jagannathan ji) in the same hospital - the story is no

different.In

> > this case Parent's Karma is the clue.Now nadiamshas can also be

> > helpful. Thus the riddle of twin is just one among the numerous

ones

> > which is difficult to solve.This does not mean we can deform

basics.

> >

> > Of course the explanations in Saravali are general and cannot be

> > taken verbatim.But so is the case with any other astrological

> > shloka - one has to account for modifications.

> >

> > But this is an excellent proof that within a rashi, various

points

> > carry different meanings.These are not mappings.A planet has got

> > full control over kshethra - but this kshethra is again divided

and

> > roles are given based on the type of division.Hence lordship for

the

> > first navamsha within in Aries Rashi is given to Mars himself,

while

> > the last one is

> > given to Guru.Vargottama can be better understood if we study

this

> > aspect carefully.When my Lagna or any other Bhava lord falls in

a

> > division ruled by its dispositor - it is vargottama - it is

under

> > the area controlled by the same planet at navamsha as well as

> > kshethra level.In shastyamsha - we are checking our

planet/lagnas

> > influence closely(within half a degree) - Hence more vimshopaka

bala.

> >

> > I do not want to repeat the points again.You may kindly read the

3

> > messages(as addressed to shri Saurav) i have posted and answer

my

> > doubts.You may choose from - a)logically prove me wrong b) agree

> > that the new theory (bhavas in vargamshas - not advised by

Parashra)

> > is only an assumption c)inspite of valid points - you are not

going

> > to agree.

> >

> > Whatever be the answer ,i am happy.I am requesting this as you

are

> > logically answering my doubts and doing a constructive debate.

> >

> > Thanks

> > Pradeep

[Guest guest]

|| Hare Rama Krishna ||

 

Dear Pradeep-ji,

Namaskar. Although your message was principally

directed towards Guru Narasimha-ji, this being a group message,

kindly let me understand it and make my reply accordinrly. Since you

are trying to be extremely logical, let me understand your arguments

in structured details.

 

Are you saying that, say for Navamsa:

 

(i) A planet owns particular Navamsa and is situated in a Navamsa

which may be owned to another planet and will give effects due to

its own ownership and due being in the another Navamsa ?

 

Please answer yes/no/may be and explain briefly.

 

(ii) Do you disagree that through owning a Navamsa/and belonging to

a particular Navamsa, it SHOULD NOT aspect or argala or some other

similar features that we apply in a chart ?

 

Please answer yes/no/may be and explain briefly.

 

(iii) How do you think are the slokas about karakamsa to be

explained ?

 

Please answer briefly.

 

(iv) Through your knowledge of the amsas (not taken as houses)try to

explain the twins case. I am not saying that that twins case should

be the acid test for your understanding. I am just trying to

understand your expertise in using the Navamsa and other amsas.

 

Again please explain briefly (and NOT as if you are producing an

argument against divisional charts)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

vedic astrology, "vijayadas_pradeep"

<vijayadas_pradeep> wrote:

>

> Dear Narasimha ji

>

> I did not make a stand alone statement - ''deform basics''. I have

> given logical arguments to support this - based on

> Rashis/Divisions/Bhavas as defined by sage Parashara.

>

> If you can give objective explanations, my statement will get

> weakened and destroyed in the process.

>

> Now the case of twins was given to rule out your possibility of

> explaining twins using bhavas. But I should politely tell you

that,

> even if it was possible, the case of twins does not stand logical

in

> this debate. We are debating the authenticity of bhavas in

> divisions.How to explain twins is a totally different issue. There

> may be numerous ways that we are not aware

> of.(For example Bhratri karaka, as Parakash has mentioned or

various

> other Lagnas as you have mentioned).On the other hand you assume

> twins can be explained only if we use bhavas.

>

> Twin issue is like this - Two individuals A & B are debating on an

> issue. Both are aware that another person C has reached a place in

> 30 minutes. They also know it is only possible (to reach in 30

> minutes) by taking a particular route. Mr. A also considers this

as

> the only route available to reach the place. Both A and B agree

that

> there are constraints preventing a vehicle to pass on this route

On

> the other hand B opines - there can be other routes as well - but

> not known to us. A

> is of strong opinion ''C has reached in 30 minutes''- hence the

> known route is the only route.

>

> Thus first we should stick to the point of debate and verify

> definitions given by Parashara.

>

> Thus I repeat my doubts.

>

> a) If we can see/have to see all matters from a single place and

if

> it is just a division - why do we want to take a different view

here

> and give importance to it alone?. If it is not important -how can

we

> see everything there (unlike shastyamsha sage did not hint it for

> general matters).

>

> b) Can we find vargottama for a ''bhava'' in navamsha? For a bhava

> in drekkana ? If not why is it seen only for a Rashi Bhava lord?

Can

> we see the navamsha of a ''bhava lord '' in Shastyamsha? - If not -

> from where do I see the bhava for the statement -''Bhava lord

> occupying benefic shastyamsha''.

>

> Thus it is not a bhava for any division - It is the Bhava for the

> Jataka. Bhava nirupana will give results for any matter pertaining

> to a Jataka.

>

> Now sixteen divisions can be used for different purposes. The

> relevant bhavas for various matters have to be first ascertained

> and the said bhava lord's stature has to be seen from the

respective

> divisions as advised by sage.

>

> We have seen from Saravali that lagna's divisions can give

> individual results for physique. Similarly each bhavas lord can

also

> give different results based on the divisions they fall. We have

to

> get the relevant texts.

>

> Ignoring these questions will be disheartening.

>

> Thanks

> Pradeep

>

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

> <pvr@c...> wrote:

> > Dear Pradeep,

> >

> > > Thus the riddle of twin is just one among the numerous ones

> > > which is difficult to solve.This does not mean we can deform

> basics.

> >

> > I too can suggest that YOU are "deforming basics". But, unlike

> you, I realize that it is against the decorum of an intelligent

> debate.

> >

> > As far as I can see, the approach you are advocating (i.e.

taking

> no houses in divisions) does NOT have enough degrees of freedom to

> distinguish between twins or closely born people. If you disagree,

> please explain the glaring difference I mentioned between the two

> twins whose charts I gave, using your approach!

> >

> > > Ourselves getting satisfied with analysis cannot be a logical

> > > conclusion or assertion.

> >

> > Whether my analysis of some twins is correct or not, the

approach

> I advocate atleast has the ability to distinguish between twins in

a

> big way. I don't see that ability in your approach. That is my

whole

> point.

> >

> > > Thanks for the data.But for twins - The chart given by ennaye

> > > proves your claim insufficient.When taken through Ceasaran

> section,

> > > even shastiamshas can be the same.

> >

> > You are jumping to hasty conclusions based on the charts of 5

> month old twins, about whom we know precious little yet!

> >

> > If lagna and 9 planets are in the same signs, do you say the

> charts are identical? Aren't hora lagna, ghati lagna, pranapada

> lagna, varnada lagna etc good for nothing? Was Parasara foolish to

> teach them?

> >

> > In the charts given by ennaye on vedic astrology list, pranapada

> lagna changes sign even in rasi. Pranapada lagna shows the

> manifestation of life force. With it in different signs in rasi,

the

> two twins can have totally different temperaments.

> >

> > The babies in the charts given by ennaye are just 5 months old.

We

> don't really know if their fortunes are significantly different.

We

> have to wait and find out. The physical differences in temperament

> etc can be explained using the pranapada lagna change in rasi. If

GL

> and HL are different in some divisions, there can be some status

> differencesin associated areas. But, if lagna in shashtyamsa is

the

> same, I expect them to have similar karmas. Bottomline is that

these

> babies are too small and we don't yet know about their life

patterns.

> >

> > On the other hand, the twin example I gave belongs to aduclts

> about whom things are known. There is a huge difference between

the

> twins and it can be beautifully explained using divisions as

charts

> with houses. Your approach does not have the ability to even

attempt

> to explain.

> >

> > May Jupiter's light shine on us,

> > Narasimha

> > -------------------------------

> > Free Jyotish lessons (MP3): http://vedicastro.home.comcast.net

> > Free Jyotish software (Windows): http://www.VedicAstrologer.org

> > SJC website: http://www.SriJagannath.org

> > -------------------------------

> >

> > > Dear Narasimha ji

> > >

> > > I am not agreeing to lagnas navamsha and features just for the

> case

> > > of twins.It is applicable for any jataka and has been my view

> always.

> > >

> > > Ourselves getting satisfied with analysis cannot be a logical

> > > conclusion or assertion.In the case of Pope we have seen

this.If

> you

> > > agree with this, fine.Else please read the following.

> > >

> > > Thanks for the data.But for twins - The chart given by ennaye

> > > proves your claim insufficient.When taken through Ceasaran

> section,

> > > even shastiamshas can be the same.

> > >

> > > Also when children are born for different parents(quoting

> > > Jagannathan ji) in the same hospital - the story is no

> different.In

> > > this case Parent's Karma is the clue.Now nadiamshas can also

be

> > > helpful. Thus the riddle of twin is just one among the

numerous

> ones

> > > which is difficult to solve.This does not mean we can deform

> basics.

> > >

> > > Of course the explanations in Saravali are general and cannot

be

> > > taken verbatim.But so is the case with any other astrological

> > > shloka - one has to account for modifications.

> > >

> > > But this is an excellent proof that within a rashi, various

> points

> > > carry different meanings.These are not mappings.A planet has

got

> > > full control over kshethra - but this kshethra is again

divided

> and

> > > roles are given based on the type of division.Hence lordship

for

> the

> > > first navamsha within in Aries Rashi is given to Mars himself,

> while

> > > the last one is

> > > given to Guru.Vargottama can be better understood if we study

> this

> > > aspect carefully.When my Lagna or any other Bhava lord falls

in

> a

> > > division ruled by its dispositor - it is vargottama - it is

> under

> > > the area controlled by the same planet at navamsha as well as

> > > kshethra level.In shastyamsha - we are checking our

> planet/lagnas

> > > influence closely(within half a degree) - Hence more

vimshopaka

> bala.

> > >

> > > I do not want to repeat the points again.You may kindly read

the

> 3

> > > messages(as addressed to shri Saurav) i have posted and answer

> my

> > > doubts.You may choose from - a)logically prove me wrong b)

agree

> > > that the new theory (bhavas in vargamshas - not advised by

> Parashra)

> > > is only an assumption c)inspite of valid points - you are not

> going

> > > to agree.

> > >

> > > Whatever be the answer ,i am happy.I am requesting this as you

> are

> > > logically answering my doubts and doing a constructive debate.

> > >

> > > Thanks

> > > Pradeep

[Guest guest]

Dear Shri Saurav

 

I can understand the intention behind your questions.

If in your next mail you plan to give sholkas with aspects and

navamshas,i can give you the answers in advance.

 

Quality of navamsha is depending on the ruler.If that ruler is

friendly etc and also well placed in Rashi, then the planet placed in

that navamsha will have strength.

 

If you read - Moon in the navamsha of Mars aspected by saturn - It

means - Saturn has apect on Moon(Rashi) and Moon is placed in either

scorpio or aries navasmha - for eg first 3.2 degrees of Aries Rashi.

 

Karakamsha is to be determined(as you know) and for finding

houses/aspects from that,one has to transfer it back to rashi chakra

-which is logical -amshas are divisions and does not have bhavas.

 

Now what about my questions.

 

Thanks

Pradeep

 

 

vedic astrology, "Sourav Chowdhury"

<souravc108> wrote:

>

> || Hare Rama Krishna ||

>

> Dear Pradeep-ji,

> Namaskar. Although your message was principally

> directed towards Guru Narasimha-ji, this being a group message,

> kindly let me understand it and make my reply accordinrly. Since you

> are trying to be extremely logical, let me understand your arguments

> in structured details.

>

> Are you saying that, say for Navamsa:

>

> (i) A planet owns particular Navamsa and is situated in a Navamsa

> which may be owned to another planet and will give effects due to

> its own ownership and due being in the another Navamsa ?

>

> Please answer yes/no/may be and explain briefly.

>

> (ii) Do you disagree that through owning a Navamsa/and belonging to

> a particular Navamsa, it SHOULD NOT aspect or argala or some other

> similar features that we apply in a chart ?

>

> Please answer yes/no/may be and explain briefly.

>

> (iii) How do you think are the slokas about karakamsa to be

> explained ?

>

> Please answer briefly.

>

> (iv) Through your knowledge of the amsas (not taken as houses)try to

> explain the twins case. I am not saying that that twins case should

> be the acid test for your understanding. I am just trying to

> understand your expertise in using the Navamsa and other amsas.

>

> Again please explain briefly (and NOT as if you are producing an

> argument against divisional charts)

>

vedic astrology, "vijayadas_pradeep"

> <vijayadas_pradeep> wrote:

> >

> > Dear Narasimha ji

> >

> > I did not make a stand alone statement - ''deform basics''. I have

> > given logical arguments to support this - based on

> > Rashis/Divisions/Bhavas as defined by sage Parashara.

> >

> > If you can give objective explanations, my statement will get

> > weakened and destroyed in the process.

> >

> > Now the case of twins was given to rule out your possibility of

> > explaining twins using bhavas. But I should politely tell you

> that,

> > even if it was possible, the case of twins does not stand logical

> in

> > this debate. We are debating the authenticity of bhavas in

> > divisions.How to explain twins is a totally different issue. There

> > may be numerous ways that we are not aware

> > of.(For example Bhratri karaka, as Parakash has mentioned or

> various

> > other Lagnas as you have mentioned).On the other hand you assume

> > twins can be explained only if we use bhavas.

> >

> > Twin issue is like this - Two individuals A & B are debating on an

> > issue. Both are aware that another person C has reached a place in

> > 30 minutes. They also know it is only possible (to reach in 30

> > minutes) by taking a particular route. Mr. A also considers this

> as

> > the only route available to reach the place. Both A and B agree

> that

> > there are constraints preventing a vehicle to pass on this route

> On

> > the other hand B opines - there can be other routes as well - but

> > not known to us. A

> > is of strong opinion ''C has reached in 30 minutes''- hence the

> > known route is the only route.

> >

> > Thus first we should stick to the point of debate and verify

> > definitions given by Parashara.

> >

> > Thus I repeat my doubts.

> >

> > a) If we can see/have to see all matters from a single place and

> if

> > it is just a division - why do we want to take a different view

> here

> > and give importance to it alone?. If it is not important -how can

> we

> > see everything there (unlike shastyamsha sage did not hint it for

> > general matters).

> >

> > b) Can we find vargottama for a ''bhava'' in navamsha? For a bhava

> > in drekkana ? If not why is it seen only for a Rashi Bhava lord?

> Can

> > we see the navamsha of a ''bhava lord '' in Shastyamsha? - If not -

> > from where do I see the bhava for the statement -''Bhava lord

> > occupying benefic shastyamsha''.

> >

> > Thus it is not a bhava for any division - It is the Bhava for the

> > Jataka. Bhava nirupana will give results for any matter pertaining

> > to a Jataka.

> >

> > Now sixteen divisions can be used for different purposes. The

> > relevant bhavas for various matters have to be first ascertained

> > and the said bhava lord's stature has to be seen from the

> respective

> > divisions as advised by sage.

> >

> > We have seen from Saravali that lagna's divisions can give

> > individual results for physique. Similarly each bhavas lord can

> also

> > give different results based on the divisions they fall. We have

> to

> > get the relevant texts.

> >

> > Ignoring these questions will be disheartening.

> >

> > Thanks

> > Pradeep

> >

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

> > <pvr@c...> wrote:

> > > Dear Pradeep,

> > >

> > > > Thus the riddle of twin is just one among the numerous ones

> > > > which is difficult to solve.This does not mean we can deform

> > basics.

> > >

> > > I too can suggest that YOU are "deforming basics". But, unlike

> > you, I realize that it is against the decorum of an intelligent

> > debate.

> > >

> > > As far as I can see, the approach you are advocating (i.e.

> taking

> > no houses in divisions) does NOT have enough degrees of freedom to

> > distinguish between twins or closely born people. If you disagree,

> > please explain the glaring difference I mentioned between the two

> > twins whose charts I gave, using your approach!

> > >

> > > > Ourselves getting satisfied with analysis cannot be a logical

> > > > conclusion or assertion.

> > >

> > > Whether my analysis of some twins is correct or not, the

> approach

> > I advocate atleast has the ability to distinguish between twins in

> a

> > big way. I don't see that ability in your approach. That is my

> whole

> > point.

> > >

> > > > Thanks for the data.But for twins - The chart given by ennaye

> > > > proves your claim insufficient.When taken through Ceasaran

> > section,

> > > > even shastiamshas can be the same.

> > >

> > > You are jumping to hasty conclusions based on the charts of 5

> > month old twins, about whom we know precious little yet!

> > >

> > > If lagna and 9 planets are in the same signs, do you say the

> > charts are identical? Aren't hora lagna, ghati lagna, pranapada

> > lagna, varnada lagna etc good for nothing? Was Parasara foolish to

> > teach them?

> > >

> > > In the charts given by ennaye on vedic astrology list, pranapada

> > lagna changes sign even in rasi. Pranapada lagna shows the

> > manifestation of life force. With it in different signs in rasi,

> the

> > two twins can have totally different temperaments.

> > >

> > > The babies in the charts given by ennaye are just 5 months old.

> We

> > don't really know if their fortunes are significantly different.

> We

> > have to wait and find out. The physical differences in temperament

> > etc can be explained using the pranapada lagna change in rasi. If

> GL

> > and HL are different in some divisions, there can be some status

> > differencesin associated areas. But, if lagna in shashtyamsa is

> the

> > same, I expect them to have similar karmas. Bottomline is that

> these

> > babies are too small and we don't yet know about their life

> patterns.

> > >

> > > On the other hand, the twin example I gave belongs to aduclts

> > about whom things are known. There is a huge difference between

> the

> > twins and it can be beautifully explained using divisions as

> charts

> > with houses. Your approach does not have the ability to even

> attempt

> > to explain.

> > >

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

> > > Narasimha

> > > -------------------------------

> > > Free Jyotish lessons (MP3): http://vedicastro.home.comcast.net

> > > Free Jyotish software (Windows): http://www.VedicAstrologer.org

> > > SJC website: http://www.SriJagannath.org

> > > -------------------------------

> > >

> > > > Dear Narasimha ji

> > > >

> > > > I am not agreeing to lagnas navamsha and features just for the

> > case

> > > > of twins.It is applicable for any jataka and has been my view

> > always.

> > > >

> > > > Ourselves getting satisfied with analysis cannot be a logical

> > > > conclusion or assertion.In the case of Pope we have seen

> this.If

> > you

> > > > agree with this, fine.Else please read the following.

> > > >

> > > > Thanks for the data.But for twins - The chart given by ennaye

> > > > proves your claim insufficient.When taken through Ceasaran

> > section,

> > > > even shastiamshas can be the same.

> > > >

> > > > Also when children are born for different parents(quoting

> > > > Jagannathan ji) in the same hospital - the story is no

> > different.In

> > > > this case Parent's Karma is the clue.Now nadiamshas can also

> be

> > > > helpful. Thus the riddle of twin is just one among the

> numerous

> > ones

> > > > which is difficult to solve.This does not mean we can deform

> > basics.

> > > >

> > > > Of course the explanations in Saravali are general and cannot

> be

> > > > taken verbatim.But so is the case with any other astrological

> > > > shloka - one has to account for modifications.

> > > >

> > > > But this is an excellent proof that within a rashi, various

> > points

> > > > carry different meanings.These are not mappings.A planet has

> got

> > > > full control over kshethra - but this kshethra is again

> divided

> > and

> > > > roles are given based on the type of division.Hence lordship

> for

> > the

> > > > first navamsha within in Aries Rashi is given to Mars himself,

> > while

> > > > the last one is

> > > > given to Guru.Vargottama can be better understood if we study

> > this

> > > > aspect carefully.When my Lagna or any other Bhava lord falls

> in

> > a

> > > > division ruled by its dispositor - it is vargottama - it is

> > under

> > > > the area controlled by the same planet at navamsha as well as

> > > > kshethra level.In shastyamsha - we are checking our

> > planet/lagnas

> > > > influence closely(within half a degree) - Hence more

> vimshopaka

> > bala.

> > > >

> > > > I do not want to repeat the points again.You may kindly read

> the

> > 3

> > > > messages(as addressed to shri Saurav) i have posted and answer

> > my

> > > > doubts.You may choose from - a)logically prove me wrong b)

> agree

> > > > that the new theory (bhavas in vargamshas - not advised by

> > Parashra)

> > > > is only an assumption c)inspite of valid points - you are not

> > going

> > > > to agree.

> > > >

> > > > Whatever be the answer ,i am happy.I am requesting this as you

> > are

> > > > logically answering my doubts and doing a constructive debate.

> > > >

> > > > Thanks

> > > > Pradeep

[Guest guest]

Namaste Pradeep,

 

> I did not make a stand alone statement - ''deform basics''. I have > given

logical arguments to support this - based on > Rashis/Divisions/Bhavas as

defined by sage Parashara.

 

What is a "logical argument" to someone may be unintelligible rambling to someone else.

 

One's perception that one made a "logical" argument cannot be a justification

for labelling someone else's basics as "deformed", which is against the basic

decorum of an intellectual argument.

> If you can give objective explanations, my statement will get > weakened and

destroyed in the process.

The very reason I have taken recourse to examples instead of theoretical

arguments is that I simply do not understand your questions, your arguments and

your views. Even after reading many mails from you, I don't understand your

arguments and what your problem with houses in navamsa is.

 

Cancer is the 3rd sign from Taurus and hence the 3rd house. Whether we are

talking about rasi chart or navamsa chart, they are made up of the same 12

signs and Cancer is the 3rd from Taurus in all. This is a very simple and basic

fact for me. If Parasara taught us to see marriage in navamsa, education in D-24

etc, I cannot imagine how I can see them without using houses. In fact, if I

combine the two teachings of Parasara that D-12 shows parents and the 4th and

9th houses show mother and father, it implies to me that the 4th and 9th houses

in the chart showing parents (D-12) show mother and father and hence houses in

divisional charts are sanctioned.

 

Your insistence on using the signs, exaltation, debilitation, moolatrikona etc

in navamsa and other divisions, but not using houses, is very strange to me. I

do not at all understand where you are coming from and where you may go.

 

That is why I am not trying to argue theoretically with you. I have an approach

that allows me to distinguish between twins and closely born people in a big

and meaningful way. I don't see the degrees of freedom needed to do that in

your approach. I was hoping that you would show me how you can distinguish

between twins in a meaningful way, using a practical example.

 

You are evading that question. You don't seem to have an answer and yet not

willing to accept it. That is all I can conclude at this point.

 

I wish you all the best in your pursuit of Truth.

 

May Jupiter's light shine on

us,Narasimha-------------------------------Free

Jyotish lessons (MP3): http://vedicastro.home.comcast.netFree Jyotish software

(Windows): http://www.VedicAstrologer.org

SJC website:

http://www.SriJagannath.org-------------------------------

 

> Dear Narasimha ji> > I did not make a stand alone statement - ''deform

basics''. I have > given logical arguments to support this - based on >

Rashis/Divisions/Bhavas as defined by sage Parashara.> > If you can give

objective explanations, my statement will get > weakened and destroyed in the

process.> > Now the case of twins was given to rule out your possibility of >

explaining twins using bhavas. But I should politely tell you that, > even if

it was possible, the case of twins does not stand logical in > this debate. We

are debating the authenticity of bhavas in > divisions.How to explain twins is

a totally different issue. There > may be numerous ways that we are not aware>

of.(For example Bhratri karaka, as Parakash has mentioned or various > other

Lagnas as you have mentioned).On the other hand you assume > twins can be

explained only if we use bhavas. > > Twin issue is like this - Two individuals

A & B are debating on an > issue. Both are aware that another person C has

reached a place in > 30 minutes. They also know it is only possible (to reach

in 30 > minutes) by taking a particular route. Mr. A also considers this as >

the only route available to reach the place. Both A and B agree that > there

are constraints preventing a vehicle to pass on this route On > the other hand

B opines - there can be other routes as well - but > not known to us. A > is of

strong opinion ''C has reached in 30 minutes''- hence the > known route is the

only route.> > Thus first we should stick to the point of debate and verify >

definitions given by Parashara.> > Thus I repeat my doubts.> > a) If we can

see/have to see all matters from a single place and if > it is just a division

- why do we want to take a different view here > and give importance to it

alone?. If it is not important -how can we > see everything there (unlike

shastyamsha sage did not hint it for > general matters).> > b) Can we find

vargottama for a ''bhava'' in navamsha? For a bhava > in drekkana ? If not why

is it seen only for a Rashi Bhava lord? Can > we see the navamsha of a ''bhava

lord '' in Shastyamsha? - If not -> from where do I see the bhava for the

statement -''Bhava lord > occupying benefic shastyamsha''.> > Thus it is not a

bhava for any division - It is the Bhava for the > Jataka. Bhava nirupana will

give results for any matter pertaining > to a Jataka.> > Now sixteen divisions

can be used for different purposes. The > relevant bhavas for various matters

have to be first ascertained > and the said bhava lord's stature has to be seen

from the respective > divisions as advised by sage.> > We have seen from

Saravali that lagna's divisions can give > individual results for physique.

Similarly each bhavas lord can also > give different results based on the

divisions they fall. We have to > get the relevant texts. > > Ignoring these

questions will be disheartening.> > Thanks> Pradeep> > > Dear Pradeep,> > > >

> Thus the riddle of twin is just one among the numerous ones > > > which is

difficult to solve.This does not mean we can deform > basics.> > > > I too can

suggest that YOU are "deforming basics". But, unlike > you, I realize that it is

against the decorum of an intelligent > debate.> > > > As far as I can see, the

approach you are advocating (i.e. taking > no houses in divisions) does NOT have

enough degrees of freedom to > distinguish between twins or closely born people.

If you disagree, > please explain the glaring difference I mentioned between the

two > twins whose charts I gave, using your approach!> > > > > Ourselves

getting satisfied with analysis cannot be a logical > > > conclusion or

assertion.> > > > Whether my analysis of some twins is correct or not, the

approach > I advocate atleast has the ability to distinguish between twins in a

> big way. I don't see that ability in your approach. That is my whole > point.>

> > > > Thanks for the data.But for twins - The chart given by ennaye > > >

proves your claim insufficient.When taken through Ceasaran > section, > > >

even shastiamshas can be the same.> > > > You are jumping to hasty conclusions

based on the charts of 5 > month old twins, about whom we know precious little

yet!> > > > If lagna and 9 planets are in the same signs, do you say the >

charts are identical? Aren't hora lagna, ghati lagna, pranapada > lagna,

varnada lagna etc good for nothing? Was Parasara foolish to > teach them?> > >

> In the charts given by ennaye on vedic astrology list, pranapada > lagna

changes sign even in rasi. Pranapada lagna shows the > manifestation of life

force. With it in different signs in rasi, the > two twins can have totally

different temperaments.> > > > The babies in the charts given by ennaye are

just 5 months old. We > don't really know if their fortunes are significantly

different. We > have to wait and find out. The physical differences in

temperament > etc can be explained using the pranapada lagna change in rasi. If

GL > and HL are different in some divisions, there can be some status >

differencesin associated areas. But, if lagna in shashtyamsa is the > same, I

expect them to have similar karmas. Bottomline is that these > babies are too

small and we don't yet know about their life patterns.> > > > On the other

hand, the twin example I gave belongs to aduclts > about whom things are known.

There is a huge difference between the > twins and it can be beautifully

explained using divisions as charts > with houses. Your approach does not have

the ability to even attempt > to explain.> > > > May Jupiter's light shine on

us,> > Narasimha> >

-------------------------------> > Free

Jyotish lessons (MP3): http://vedicastro.home.comcast.net> > Free Jyotish

software (Windows): http://www.VedicAstrologer.org > > SJC website:

http://www.SriJagannath.org> >

-------------------------------

[Guest guest]

Dear Narasimha ji

 

If mine were subjective views, then you are right - logic to me can

be rubbish to you and vice-versa.What i have raised were connected

to Parashara's statements.

 

1) ''Those Bhavas whose lords are in benefic shastyamshas'' - Where

do I read this bhava from?

2) ''All planets aspect the seventh fully'' - Can the planets placed

opposite in navamsha aspect fully?

3)If the 5th lord is in Parijatamsa, the native will take to the

branch of learning befitting his race, if in uttamamsa he will have

excellent learning, if in Gopuramsa he will receive world-wide

honors - where is this 5th lord found?

4)If the 9th lord is in Parijatamsa, the native will visit holy

places, if in Uttamamsa he had done so in the past births as well,

if in Gopuramsa he will perform sacrificial rites,if in Paaravatamsa

he will be the greatest of ascetics - Where is this 9th lord found?

Thus natal 5th lords position in chathurvimshamsha, 9th lords

position in Vimshamsha etc are important.Natal aspect ,conjunction,

stature,strength etc of these lords will determine/modify the

degree of effects. Bhavat Bhavam principles will give complete

understanding.

 

If you can ask this question yourself - at least once - you will

understand my doubts.

 

Now regarding theory and application.

Parashara did not teach us with the help of examples, thus

theoretical understanding of his works is important -before making

any prediction.

 

Dr. Raman had predicted rise and fall in Hitler's career without

dashamsha - how?As he had not used saptamsha - was his understanding

on children poor?

Shri K.N.Raoji has given a clear analysis on Pope Ratzinger.

 

I feel bhava analysis is like that of a compass and pencil. If we do

not make the sharp edge of our compass stable at the desired point ,

the arc we are going to inscribe will err. Please don't take your

eyes off the relevant bhavas (bhava for the jataka) -even while

looking at their lord's position in the respective divisions.

 

Thanks

Pradeep

 

 

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

<pvr@c...> wrote:

> Namaste Pradeep,

>

> > I did not make a stand alone statement - ''deform basics''. I

have

> > given logical arguments to support this - based on

> > Rashis/Divisions/Bhavas as defined by sage Parashara.

>

> What is a "logical argument" to someone may be unintelligible

rambling to someone else.

>

> One's perception that one made a "logical" argument cannot be a

justification for labelling someone else's basics as "deformed",

which is against the basic decorum of an intellectual argument.

>

> > If you can give objective explanations, my statement will get

> > weakened and destroyed in the process.

>

> The very reason I have taken recourse to examples instead of

theoretical arguments is that I simply do not understand your

questions, your arguments and your views. Even after reading many

mails from you, I don't understand your arguments and what your

problem with houses in navamsa is.

>

> Cancer is the 3rd sign from Taurus and hence the 3rd house.

Whether we are talking about rasi chart or navamsa chart, they are

made up of the same 12 signs and Cancer is the 3rd from Taurus in

all. This is a very simple and basic fact for me. If Parasara taught

us to see marriage in navamsa, education in D-24 etc, I cannot

imagine how I can see them without using houses. In fact, if I

combine the two teachings of Parasara that D-12 shows parents and

the 4th and 9th houses show mother and father, it implies to me that

the 4th and 9th houses in the chart showing parents (D-12) show

mother and father and hence houses in divisional charts are

sanctioned.

>

> Your insistence on using the signs, exaltation, debilitation,

moolatrikona etc in navamsa and other divisions, but not using

houses, is very strange to me. I do not at all understand where you

are coming from and where you may go.

>

> That is why I am not trying to argue theoretically with you. I

have an approach that allows me to distinguish between twins and

closely born people in a big and meaningful way. I don't see the

degrees of freedom needed to do that in your approach. I was hoping

that you would show me how you can distinguish between twins in a

meaningful way, using a practical example.

>

> You are evading that question. You don't seem to have an answer

and yet not willing to accept it. That is all I can conclude at this

point.

>

> I wish you all the best in your pursuit of Truth.

>

> May Jupiter's light shine on us,

> Narasimha

> -------------------------------

> Free Jyotish lessons (MP3): http://vedicastro.home.comcast.net

> Free Jyotish software (Windows): http://www.VedicAstrologer.org

> SJC website: http://www.SriJagannath.org

> -------------------------------

>

> > Dear Narasimha ji

> >

> > I did not make a stand alone statement - ''deform basics''. I

have

> > given logical arguments to support this - based on

> > Rashis/Divisions/Bhavas as defined by sage Parashara.

> >

> > If you can give objective explanations, my statement will get

> > weakened and destroyed in the process.

> >

> > Now the case of twins was given to rule out your possibility of

> > explaining twins using bhavas. But I should politely tell you

that,

> > even if it was possible, the case of twins does not stand

logical in

> > this debate. We are debating the authenticity of bhavas in

> > divisions.How to explain twins is a totally different issue.

There

> > may be numerous ways that we are not aware

> > of.(For example Bhratri karaka, as Parakash has mentioned or

various

> > other Lagnas as you have mentioned).On the other hand you assume

> > twins can be explained only if we use bhavas.

> >

> > Twin issue is like this - Two individuals A & B are debating on

an

> > issue. Both are aware that another person C has reached a place

in

> > 30 minutes. They also know it is only possible (to reach in 30

> > minutes) by taking a particular route. Mr. A also considers this

as

> > the only route available to reach the place. Both A and B agree

that

> > there are constraints preventing a vehicle to pass on this route

On

> > the other hand B opines - there can be other routes as well -

but

> > not known to us. A

> > is of strong opinion ''C has reached in 30 minutes''- hence the

> > known route is the only route.

> >

> > Thus first we should stick to the point of debate and verify

> > definitions given by Parashara.

> >

> > Thus I repeat my doubts.

> >

> > a) If we can see/have to see all matters from a single place and

if

> > it is just a division - why do we want to take a different view

here

> > and give importance to it alone?. If it is not important -how

can we

> > see everything there (unlike shastyamsha sage did not hint it

for

> > general matters).

> >

> > b) Can we find vargottama for a ''bhava'' in navamsha? For a

bhava

> > in drekkana ? If not why is it seen only for a Rashi Bhava lord?

Can

> > we see the navamsha of a ''bhava lord '' in Shastyamsha? - If

not -

> > from where do I see the bhava for the statement -''Bhava lord

> > occupying benefic shastyamsha''.

> >

> > Thus it is not a bhava for any division - It is the Bhava for

the

> > Jataka. Bhava nirupana will give results for any matter

pertaining

> > to a Jataka.

> >

> > Now sixteen divisions can be used for different purposes. The

> > relevant bhavas for various matters have to be first

ascertained

> > and the said bhava lord's stature has to be seen from the

respective

> > divisions as advised by sage.

> >

> > We have seen from Saravali that lagna's divisions can give

> > individual results for physique. Similarly each bhavas lord can

also

> > give different results based on the divisions they fall. We have

to

> > get the relevant texts.

> >

> > Ignoring these questions will be disheartening.

> >

> > Thanks

> > Pradeep

> >

> > > Dear Pradeep,

> > >

> > > > Thus the riddle of twin is just one among the numerous ones

> > > > which is difficult to solve.This does not mean we can deform

> > basics.

> > >

> > > I too can suggest that YOU are "deforming basics". But, unlike

> > you, I realize that it is against the decorum of an intelligent

> > debate.

> > >

> > > As far as I can see, the approach you are advocating (i.e.

taking

> > no houses in divisions) does NOT have enough degrees of freedom

to

> > distinguish between twins or closely born people. If you

disagree,

> > please explain the glaring difference I mentioned between the

two

> > twins whose charts I gave, using your approach!

> > >

> > > > Ourselves getting satisfied with analysis cannot be a

logical

> > > > conclusion or assertion.

> > >

> > > Whether my analysis of some twins is correct or not, the

approach

> > I advocate atleast has the ability to distinguish between twins

in a

> > big way. I don't see that ability in your approach. That is my

whole

> > point.

> > >

> > > > Thanks for the data.But for twins - The chart given by

ennaye

> > > > proves your claim insufficient.When taken through Ceasaran

> > section,

> > > > even shastiamshas can be the same.

> > >

> > > You are jumping to hasty conclusions based on the charts of 5

> > month old twins, about whom we know precious little yet!

> > >

> > > If lagna and 9 planets are in the same signs, do you say the

> > charts are identical? Aren't hora lagna, ghati lagna, pranapada

> > lagna, varnada lagna etc good for nothing? Was Parasara foolish

to

> > teach them?

> > >

> > > In the charts given by ennaye on vedic astrology list,

pranapada

> > lagna changes sign even in rasi. Pranapada lagna shows the

> > manifestation of life force. With it in different signs in rasi,

the

> > two twins can have totally different temperaments.

> > >

> > > The babies in the charts given by ennaye are just 5 months

old. We

> > don't really know if their fortunes are significantly different.

We

> > have to wait and find out. The physical differences in

temperament

> > etc can be explained using the pranapada lagna change in rasi.

If GL

> > and HL are different in some divisions, there can be some status

> > differencesin associated areas. But, if lagna in shashtyamsa is

the

> > same, I expect them to have similar karmas. Bottomline is that

these

> > babies are too small and we don't yet know about their life

patterns.

> > >

> > > On the other hand, the twin example I gave belongs to aduclts

> > about whom things are known. There is a huge difference between

the

> > twins and it can be beautifully explained using divisions as

charts

> > with houses. Your approach does not have the ability to even

attempt

> > to explain.

> > >

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

> > > Narasimha

> > > ------------------------------

-

> > > Free Jyotish lessons (MP3): http://vedicastro.home.comcast.net

> > > Free Jyotish software (Windows):

http://www.VedicAstrologer.org

> > > SJC website: http://www.SriJagannath.org

> > > ------------------------------

-