Difficulties for Bhavas in Vargamshas/Shri Narasimha

[Guest guest]

Namaste Pradeepji,

 

What you have stated makes a lot of sense to me.

 

....

 

On 4/27/05, vijayadas_pradeep <vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

>

> Dear Narasimha ji

>

> As you have not understood - Let me make another attempt.

>

> If we look from Chandra Lagna in natal chart - we just consider it

> as a lagna and continue bhava analysis, without tampering our birth

> planetary placements. Also when we look from 4th house and count

> nine for my mother's father or luck regarding fourth house

> matters ,I consider fourth house as lagna and do the above exercise.

> When we transfer karakamsha to rashi - we do the same. When we

> transfer navamsha lagna back to rashi - we consider that bhava as

> lagna and do the same. Thus i

> have no problem in seeing bhavas/aspects in all these cases.

>

> Now as you have said cancer is 3rd from Taurus. But how do we arrive

> at a Cancer in divisions? In case of navamsha, this cancer can

> represent the fourth ''3 dgree 20 minutes'' sector in

> Aries/Leo/Sagittarius sign or the first sector in

> Cancer/Scorpio/Pisces etc.BJP can rule a district local body within

> a state ruled by congress as well as a state ruled by it. So are a

> Cancer within Aries and Cancer within Cancer. Kalyan Varma has

> explained how the physique will change when lagna falls in cancer

> navamshas within different signs.

>

> Thus when you arrange a)a cancer from Aries b) Leo from Taurus and c)

> Virgo from Cancer etc as a chart and try to analyse bhavas it is

> difficult for me to understand.May be you are having better

> understanding. When Moon and Venus are together in navamsha but not

> in Rashi , they are not really together. It only shows the similar

> influences they are subjected to(aspectual patterns).

>

> As per the above situation aspect is not possible, argala is not

> possible,bhava is not possible - Planets have to be really placed in

> second from lagna etc to cast argala.Also these bhava holding signs

> have to be really in continuity ( not picked up from different

> places) as each bhava is a growth bhava for the preceding one. Thus

> if you still do not understand I am helpless.

>

> I thank you for all your valauble time and also for your wishes.Even

> if you disagree, my respect for your contribution remains the

> same.More so as you cared to reply - when those who are more

> responsible - did not.

>

> Please confirm whether you have understood or not.You can agree or

> disagree with my views - that is a different issue as compared to

> understanding.

>

> 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

> > > >

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

> -

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

> Group info:

> vedic astrology/info.html

>

> To UNSUBSCRIBE: Blank mail to

> vedic astrology-

>

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

>

>

>

>

> ________________________________

> Links

>

>

> vedic astrology/

>

>

> vedic astrology

>

>

[Guest guest]

|| Hare Rama Krishna ||

 

Dear Pradeep-ji,

Namaskar. Time and again, Guru Narasimha-ji has

asked you to take up ANY EXAMPLE, set aside all verbiage, and :

 

(i) clearly explain a person's chart using your non-bhava technique.

 

(ii) show that by bhava-technique (i.e. divisional chart technique)

we arrive at less finer predictions that your suggested method.

 

Why don't you do that, for once ??!!??

 

This will show us

 

(a) whether or not your technique is the technique suggested by

Maharshi Parasara and the divisional charts technique is not correct.

 

(b) Will help us understand your argument better if we

can 'visualize' it.

 

Take any well-known person's example, who's chart is very well

rectified and established. You can take Kaviguru Ravindranath

Tagore's birth chart. You have to time his events properly too.

 

Hope you are amenable to Guru Narasimha-ji's request once !!

 

Regards,

 

Sourav

====================================================================

 

vedic astrology, "vijayadas_pradeep"

<vijayadas_pradeep> wrote:

>

> Dear Narasimha ji

>

> As you have not understood - Let me make another attempt.

>

> If we look from Chandra Lagna in natal chart - we just consider it

> as a lagna and continue bhava analysis, without tampering our

birth

> planetary placements. Also when we look from 4th house and count

> nine for my mother's father or luck regarding fourth house

> matters ,I consider fourth house as lagna and do the above

exercise.

> When we transfer karakamsha to rashi - we do the same. When we

> transfer navamsha lagna back to rashi - we consider that bhava as

> lagna and do the same. Thus i

> have no problem in seeing bhavas/aspects in all these cases.

>

> Now as you have said cancer is 3rd from Taurus. But how do we

arrive

> at a Cancer in divisions? In case of navamsha, this cancer can

> represent the fourth ''3 dgree 20 minutes'' sector in

> Aries/Leo/Sagittarius sign or the first sector in

> Cancer/Scorpio/Pisces etc.BJP can rule a district local body

within

> a state ruled by congress as well as a state ruled by it. So are a

> Cancer within Aries and Cancer within Cancer. Kalyan Varma has

> explained how the physique will change when lagna falls in cancer

> navamshas within different signs.

>

> Thus when you arrange a)a cancer from Aries b) Leo from Taurus and

c)

> Virgo from Cancer etc as a chart and try to analyse bhavas it is

> difficult for me to understand.May be you are having better

> understanding. When Moon and Venus are together in navamsha but

not

> in Rashi , they are not really together. It only shows the

similar

> influences they are subjected to(aspectual patterns).

>

> As per the above situation aspect is not possible, argala is not

> possible,bhava is not possible - Planets have to be really placed

in

> second from lagna etc to cast argala.Also these bhava holding

signs

> have to be really in continuity ( not picked up from different

> places) as each bhava is a growth bhava for the preceding one.

Thus

> if you still do not understand I am helpless.

>

> I thank you for all your valauble time and also for your

wishes.Even

> if you disagree, my respect for your contribution remains the

> same.More so as you cared to reply - when those who are more

> responsible - did not.

>

> Please confirm whether you have understood or not.You can agree or

> disagree with my views - that is a different issue as compared to

> understanding.

>

> 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

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

--

> -

[Guest guest]

Dear Shri Panditji

 

I am happy that you are looking at facts in an objective fashion.

Many have understood what i am saying but still making me do lot of

hard work.I am only happy to do this for the cause of astrology.

 

Thanks

Pradeep

 

vedic astrology, Panditji <navagraha@g...> wrote:

> Namaste Pradeepji,

>

> What you have stated makes a lot of sense to me.

>

> ...

>

> On 4/27/05, vijayadas_pradeep <vijayadas_pradeep> wrote:

> >

> > Dear Narasimha ji

> >

> > As you have not understood - Let me make another attempt.

> >

> > If we look from Chandra Lagna in natal chart - we just consider it

> > as a lagna and continue bhava analysis, without tampering our birth

> > planetary placements. Also when we look from 4th house and count

> > nine for my mother's father or luck regarding fourth house

> > matters ,I consider fourth house as lagna and do the above exercise.

> > When we transfer karakamsha to rashi - we do the same. When we

> > transfer navamsha lagna back to rashi - we consider that bhava as

> > lagna and do the same. Thus i

> > have no problem in seeing bhavas/aspects in all these cases.

> >

> > Now as you have said cancer is 3rd from Taurus. But how do we arrive

> > at a Cancer in divisions? In case of navamsha, this cancer can

> > represent the fourth ''3 dgree 20 minutes'' sector in

> > Aries/Leo/Sagittarius sign or the first sector in

> > Cancer/Scorpio/Pisces etc.BJP can rule a district local body within

> > a state ruled by congress as well as a state ruled by it. So are a

> > Cancer within Aries and Cancer within Cancer. Kalyan Varma has

> > explained how the physique will change when lagna falls in cancer

> > navamshas within different signs.

> >

> > Thus when you arrange a)a cancer from Aries b) Leo from Taurus and c)

> > Virgo from Cancer etc as a chart and try to analyse bhavas it is

> > difficult for me to understand.May be you are having better

> > understanding. When Moon and Venus are together in navamsha but not

> > in Rashi , they are not really together. It only shows the similar

> > influences they are subjected to(aspectual patterns).

> >

> > As per the above situation aspect is not possible, argala is not

> > possible,bhava is not possible - Planets have to be really placed in

> > second from lagna etc to cast argala.Also these bhava holding signs

> > have to be really in continuity ( not picked up from different

> > places) as each bhava is a growth bhava for the preceding one. Thus

> > if you still do not understand I am helpless.

> >

> > I thank you for all your valauble time and also for your wishes.Even

> > if you disagree, my respect for your contribution remains the

> > same.More so as you cared to reply - when those who are more

> > responsible - did not.

> >

> > Please confirm whether you have understood or not.You can agree or

> > disagree with my views - that is a different issue as compared to

> > understanding.

> >

> > 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

> > > > >

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

> > -

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > Group info:

> > vedic astrology/info.html

> >

> > To UNSUBSCRIBE: Blank mail to

> > vedic astrology-

> >

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

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > ________________________________

> > Links

> >

> >

> > vedic astrology/

> >

> >

> > vedic astrology

> >

> >

[Guest guest]

Dear shri Saurav

 

Shri Narasimha did not request me to use a chart to explain this.He

had only said so for the case of twins.

 

Now if it is for you to visualize - I can definitely use a chart.

 

But if it is for the matter of getting convinced - I can tell you

that any one with a years experince in astrology - can explain any

past event amazingly.Thus i can explain.But that is not my intention.I

do not want to somehow explain and get satisfied.Predictive power is

that one has to develop.

 

I can explain a chart with all what i have said from my limited

understanding.Give me some time.

 

But can you also show the same gesture.Before i explain the chart -

can you answer my questions on divisionals.They were not just

verbals.I have asked you a doubt on how to understand certain

statements from parashara.I am answering all your queries - thus could

you also reciprocate if appropriate.

 

Thanks

Pradeep

 

vedic astrology, "Sourav Chowdhury"

<souravc108> wrote:

>

> || Hare Rama Krishna ||

>

> Dear Pradeep-ji,

> Namaskar. Time and again, Guru Narasimha-ji has

> asked you to take up ANY EXAMPLE, set aside all verbiage, and :

>

> (i) clearly explain a person's chart using your non-bhava technique.

>

> (ii) show that by bhava-technique (i.e. divisional chart technique)

> we arrive at less finer predictions that your suggested method.

>

> Why don't you do that, for once ??!!??

>

> This will show us

>

> (a) whether or not your technique is the technique suggested by

> Maharshi Parasara and the divisional charts technique is not correct.

>

> (b) Will help us understand your argument better if we

> can 'visualize' it.

>

> Take any well-known person's example, who's chart is very well

> rectified and established. You can take Kaviguru Ravindranath

> Tagore's birth chart. You have to time his events properly too.

>

> Hope you are amenable to Guru Narasimha-ji's request once !!

>

> Regards,

>

> Sourav

> ====================================================================

>

> vedic astrology, "vijayadas_pradeep"

> <vijayadas_pradeep> wrote:

> >

> > Dear Narasimha ji

> >

> > As you have not understood - Let me make another attempt.

> >

> > If we look from Chandra Lagna in natal chart - we just consider it

> > as a lagna and continue bhava analysis, without tampering our

> birth

> > planetary placements. Also when we look from 4th house and count

> > nine for my mother's father or luck regarding fourth house

> > matters ,I consider fourth house as lagna and do the above

> exercise.

> > When we transfer karakamsha to rashi - we do the same. When we

> > transfer navamsha lagna back to rashi - we consider that bhava as

> > lagna and do the same. Thus i

> > have no problem in seeing bhavas/aspects in all these cases.

> >

> > Now as you have said cancer is 3rd from Taurus. But how do we

> arrive

> > at a Cancer in divisions? In case of navamsha, this cancer can

> > represent the fourth ''3 dgree 20 minutes'' sector in

> > Aries/Leo/Sagittarius sign or the first sector in

> > Cancer/Scorpio/Pisces etc.BJP can rule a district local body

> within

> > a state ruled by congress as well as a state ruled by it. So are a

> > Cancer within Aries and Cancer within Cancer. Kalyan Varma has

> > explained how the physique will change when lagna falls in cancer

> > navamshas within different signs.

> >

> > Thus when you arrange a)a cancer from Aries b) Leo from Taurus and

> c)

> > Virgo from Cancer etc as a chart and try to analyse bhavas it is

> > difficult for me to understand.May be you are having better

> > understanding. When Moon and Venus are together in navamsha but

> not

> > in Rashi , they are not really together. It only shows the

> similar

> > influences they are subjected to(aspectual patterns).

> >

> > As per the above situation aspect is not possible, argala is not

> > possible,bhava is not possible - Planets have to be really placed

> in

> > second from lagna etc to cast argala.Also these bhava holding

> signs

> > have to be really in continuity ( not picked up from different

> > places) as each bhava is a growth bhava for the preceding one.

> Thus

> > if you still do not understand I am helpless.

> >

> > I thank you for all your valauble time and also for your

> wishes.Even

> > if you disagree, my respect for your contribution remains the

> > same.More so as you cared to reply - when those who are more

> > responsible - did not.

> >

> > Please confirm whether you have understood or not.You can agree or

> > disagree with my views - that is a different issue as compared to

> > understanding.

> >

> > 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

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

> --

> > -

[Guest guest]

|| Hare Rama Krishna ||

 

Dear Pradeep-ji,

Namaskar. It is time you stop talking theory and

other fluffy verbiage and cut to the chase of giving illustrative

examples of how your theory works better.

 

Guru Narasimha-ji gave you a double exercise of twins. I am asking a

much simpler question of one person. If you can successfully

interpret one person's life, you can do it for two lives also ! And

differences will crop out showing how twins are different. But if

you feel comfortable with twins example, you can take that up. But

do give us something concrete and not just theory !!

 

In your next mail, I want to see an clear example and also want to

see how (not why) divisional charts are wrong in prediction or

explanation.

 

Forget about experience of astrologers. Just give a clear example,

OK ?

 

Regards,

 

Sourav

===================================================================

 

vedic astrology, "vijayadas_pradeep"

<vijayadas_pradeep> wrote:

>

> Dear shri Saurav

>

> Shri Narasimha did not request me to use a chart to explain this.He

> had only said so for the case of twins.

>

> Now if it is for you to visualize - I can definitely use a chart.

>

> But if it is for the matter of getting convinced - I can tell you

> that any one with a years experince in astrology - can explain any

> past event amazingly.Thus i can explain.But that is not my

intention.I

> do not want to somehow explain and get satisfied.Predictive power

is

> that one has to develop.

>

> I can explain a chart with all what i have said from my limited

> understanding.Give me some time.

>

> But can you also show the same gesture.Before i explain the chart -

> can you answer my questions on divisionals.They were not just

> verbals.I have asked you a doubt on how to understand certain

> statements from parashara.I am answering all your queries - thus

could

> you also reciprocate if appropriate.

>

> Thanks

> Pradeep

>

> vedic astrology, "Sourav Chowdhury"

> <souravc108> wrote:

> >

> > || Hare Rama Krishna ||

> >

> > Dear Pradeep-ji,

> > Namaskar. Time and again, Guru Narasimha-ji has

> > asked you to take up ANY EXAMPLE, set aside all verbiage, and :

> >

> > (i) clearly explain a person's chart using your non-bhava

technique.

> >

> > (ii) show that by bhava-technique (i.e. divisional chart

technique)

> > we arrive at less finer predictions that your suggested method.

> >

> > Why don't you do that, for once ??!!??

> >

> > This will show us

> >

> > (a) whether or not your technique is the technique suggested by

> > Maharshi Parasara and the divisional charts technique is not

correct.

> >

> > (b) Will help us understand your argument better if we

> > can 'visualize' it.

> >

> > Take any well-known person's example, who's chart is very well

> > rectified and established. You can take Kaviguru Ravindranath

> > Tagore's birth chart. You have to time his events properly too.

> >

> > Hope you are amenable to Guru Narasimha-ji's request once !!

> >

> > Regards,

> >

> > Sourav

> >

====================================================================

> >

> > vedic astrology, "vijayadas_pradeep"

> > <vijayadas_pradeep> wrote:

> > >

> > > Dear Narasimha ji

> > >

> > > As you have not understood - Let me make another attempt.

> > >

> > > If we look from Chandra Lagna in natal chart - we just

consider it

> > > as a lagna and continue bhava analysis, without tampering our

> > birth

> > > planetary placements. Also when we look from 4th house and

count

> > > nine for my mother's father or luck regarding fourth house

> > > matters ,I consider fourth house as lagna and do the above

> > exercise.

> > > When we transfer karakamsha to rashi - we do the same. When we

> > > transfer navamsha lagna back to rashi - we consider that bhava

as

> > > lagna and do the same. Thus i

> > > have no problem in seeing bhavas/aspects in all these cases.

> > >

> > > Now as you have said cancer is 3rd from Taurus. But how do we

> > arrive

> > > at a Cancer in divisions? In case of navamsha, this cancer can

> > > represent the fourth ''3 dgree 20 minutes'' sector in

> > > Aries/Leo/Sagittarius sign or the first sector in

> > > Cancer/Scorpio/Pisces etc.BJP can rule a district local body

> > within

> > > a state ruled by congress as well as a state ruled by it. So

are a

> > > Cancer within Aries and Cancer within Cancer. Kalyan Varma has

> > > explained how the physique will change when lagna falls in

cancer

> > > navamshas within different signs.

> > >

> > > Thus when you arrange a)a cancer from Aries b) Leo from Taurus

and

> > c)

> > > Virgo from Cancer etc as a chart and try to analyse bhavas it

is

> > > difficult for me to understand.May be you are having better

> > > understanding. When Moon and Venus are together in navamsha

but

> > not

> > > in Rashi , they are not really together. It only shows the

> > similar

> > > influences they are subjected to(aspectual patterns).

> > >

> > > As per the above situation aspect is not possible, argala is

not

> > > possible,bhava is not possible - Planets have to be really

placed

> > in

> > > second from lagna etc to cast argala.Also these bhava holding

> > signs

> > > have to be really in continuity ( not picked up from different

> > > places) as each bhava is a growth bhava for the preceding one.

> > Thus

> > > if you still do not understand I am helpless.

> > >

> > > I thank you for all your valauble time and also for your

> > wishes.Even

> > > if you disagree, my respect for your contribution remains the

> > > same.More so as you cared to reply - when those who are more

> > > responsible - did not.

> > >

> > > Please confirm whether you have understood or not.You can

agree or

> > > disagree with my views - that is a different issue as compared

to

> > > understanding.

> > >

> > > 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

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

----

> > --

> > > -