Difficulties for Bhavas in Vargamshas/Shri Narasimha

[Guest guest]

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

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

-