Houses in Divisional Charts/Shri Narasimha: To PVR

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sundeep,

 

Let me throw back the question to you: Did Parasara explicitly teach that houses

should NOT be taken in navamsa?

 

I never volunteered to offer a proof that houses can be taken in navamsa.

 

Given that a significant percentage of elders take houses in navamsa and

Pradeep's position of NOT taking houses in navamsa is an extreme one, I'd place

the burden of proof on him. He would need a strong reason to reject houses in

navamsa. I have not seen any strong reasons presented. All I have seen is

accusations of "deformed basics" of others and some incomprehensible points

like "tampering" with planetary positions.

 

If Saturn is in Libra in rasi chart, Saturn is exalted in rasi chart. If Saturn

is in at 11 deg in Cancer, he is not in his exaltation sign. But we take Saturn

to be exalted in navamsa (including Pradeep). That is because Saturn would be in

Libra in navamsa and Libra is his exaltation sign.

 

But if lagna is in Virgo in navamsa in this case and I say that Saturn is in the

2nd house from lagna in navamsa, he would object and say that these are not the

same Virgo and Libra and I cannot tamper with them. He says that Saturn is

actually in 10:00-13:20 in Cancer and not in Libra. But then, why can we take

Saturn to be in Libra in navamsa for the purpose of checking exaltation in

navamsa? If it is not the the same Libra, why take Saturn to be exalted there?

Why is it "not the same Libra" for counting signs and "the same old Libra" for

checking exaltation? I see totally inconsistent thinking and in fact don't get

Pradeep's objections. With that kind of thinking, I am shocked that he has the

guts to accuse others of "deformed basics".

 

If Pradeep's point is that he will not take houses in navamsa because Parasara

did not explicitly grant it, I can respect that view and move on. But he is

making a lot of points to show why he is right and others have "deformed

basics" and I am afraid I do not understand his points.

 

BTW, if you want to stop taking exaltation signs etc in navamsa and other

divisions, you will be in clear contradiction of Parasara, as he clearly

mentioned exaltation in divisions. So that is not an option!

 

I do not see any logical and consistent points in Pradeep's objection and hence

cannot engage in a discussion with him. I have spent a lot of time on him this

time and during previous times. In my judgment, it is a waste of my time to

engage any further with him. If you understand his arguments, you please engage

him.

 

When I first made the point about twins, Pradeep said that lagna in divisions

could be used to differentiate twins. When houses were not taken from lagna in

divisions, I could not understand what he was saying. I was hoping he would

explain how he would use lagna in divisions to distinguish between twins in the

example I gave, but he has evaded it.

 

You are welcome to draw your conclusions and use the approach that your

intellect finds acceptable. But I argue that there is no way to distinguish

between twins and closely born people without considering houses in navamsa and

other divisions. I will not say that this is "proof" of my approach. But, to me,

this is a motivation to stick to the approach taught bny tradition.

 

Parasara did mention houses from the amsa of atma karaka and the amsa of lagna.

It strongly suggests to me that houses can be taken in amsas. But, again, I

want to clarify that I never offered a "proof".

 

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 PVR,> I would love to see this issue clarified. I think Vijayadas has >

perhaps not clearly conveyed to you what he wants to say. He wants the > exact

and unambiguous proof that Parashar instructs us to construct D-> n CHARTS. If

Parasara says "see parents in Dwadasamsa", why is the > only logical

possibility that you have to construct a new D-12 chart > in which you nominate

the house 1 of the chart as the zodiacal sign > associated with the Dwadasamsa

occupied by the Lagna in D-1 and use > that NEW chart's 4th and 9th houses? Why

not simply consider strengths > and weaknesses of the D-1 chart's 4th and 9th

house lords' Dwadasamsas?> All this confusion could be easily removed if you

would show one place > in classical texts where it says effectively (for

example) "construct > a Navamsha CHART by taking the zodiacal sign associated

with the > Navamsha position of Lagna in Rasi chart and make that sign the

first > house in the Navamsha CHART"... or some such thing. Otherwise, he (VP)

> is correct (IMHO), it is not logically obvious from the 2 statements > you

cite.> > Sundeep> > > 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.

[Guest guest]

Dear Shri Sundeep

Shri Narasimha is a Sanskrit scholar, but he cannot understand the

meaning of amsha (a portion). He still opines, navamsha is same as

rashi. Sage has clearly said - ''Now I will explain the various

divisions of a rashi'' - Navamsha being the 1/9th part of a rashi. A

planet can be in the amsha of its exaltation sign or in the amsha of

a sign lorded by it or in the amsha of a sign which is in a quadrant

from AL etc. As any sign, say Aries, can be further divided to have

amshas lorded by various planets this is possible.What is the

difficulty in understanding all these.Still i knew that shri

Narasimha will not agree

- thus I had quoted an elder called Kalyan varma. He clearly

explains how a cancer within Aries can give results different from a

cancer within Taurus for physique. As lagna is having a sphuta and

navamsha is an arc of 3 degree 20 minutes, no one can physically

relocate the lagna or navamsha. But still shri Narasimha cannot

understand me.

 

Bhava analysis is the very purpose of Jyotish. I have asked simple

and elementary questions regarding bhavas. No answer. I expected

Intellectual honesty. A party giving subjective interpretations has

the morality and obligation to answer basic questions. The answer

cannot be '' I never volunteered to offer a proof that houses can be

taken in navamsa''.'' I'd place the burden of proof on Pradeep''.

I have not proposed anything different from Parashara and hence no

obligation/burden for me. But those who have proposed bhavas should

also tell where to see the basic statements from Parashara.

 

Out of all the questions shri Narasimha could see and understand

only two words ''deform basics'' ''tampering''. Is this fair? I

would request for the last time - to kindly address my questions, if

he consider appropriate.

Shri Narasimha wants concrete proof - All my questions are self

explanatory and if he attempts them the proof will unfold. What

other concrete proof he needs - he has to make it clear, so that I

can try.

 

Else I can only conclude the following ''Not understanding ''

and ''Do not wanting to understand'' are two different things.

 

Thanks

Pradeep

 

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

<pvr@c...> wrote:

> Namaste Sundeep,

>

> Let me throw back the question to you: Did Parasara explicitly

teach that houses should NOT be taken in navamsa?

>

> I never volunteered to offer a proof that houses can be taken in

navamsa.

>

> Given that a significant percentage of elders take houses in

navamsa and Pradeep's position of NOT taking houses in navamsa is an

extreme one, I'd place the burden of proof on him. He would need a

strong reason to reject houses in navamsa. I have not seen any

strong reasons presented. All I have seen is accusations

of "deformed basics" of others and some incomprehensible points

like "tampering" with planetary positions.

>

> If Saturn is in Libra in rasi chart, Saturn is exalted in rasi

chart. If Saturn is in at 11 deg in Cancer, he is not in his

exaltation sign. But we take Saturn to be exalted in navamsa

(including Pradeep). That is because Saturn would be in Libra in

navamsa and Libra is his exaltation sign.

>

> But if lagna is in Virgo in navamsa in this case and I say that

Saturn is in the 2nd house from lagna in navamsa, he would object

and say that these are not the same Virgo and Libra and I cannot

tamper with them. He says that Saturn is actually in 10:00-13:20 in

Cancer and not in Libra. But then, why can we take Saturn to be in

Libra in navamsa for the purpose of checking exaltation in navamsa?

If it is not the the same Libra, why take Saturn to be exalted

there? Why is it "not the same Libra" for counting signs and "the

same old Libra" for checking exaltation? I see totally inconsistent

thinking and in fact don't get Pradeep's objections. With that kind

of thinking, I am shocked that he has the guts to accuse others

of "deformed basics".

>

> If Pradeep's point is that he will not take houses in navamsa

because Parasara did not explicitly grant it, I can respect that

view and move on. But he is making a lot of points to show why he is

right and others have "deformed basics" and I am afraid I do not

understand his points.

>

> BTW, if you want to stop taking exaltation signs etc in navamsa

and other divisions, you will be in clear contradiction of Parasara,

as he clearly mentioned exaltation in divisions. So that is not an

option!

>

> I do not see any logical and consistent points in Pradeep's

objection and hence cannot engage in a discussion with him. I have

spent a lot of time on him this time and during previous times. In

my judgment, it is a waste of my time to engage any further with

him. If you understand his arguments, you please engage him.

>

> When I first made the point about twins, Pradeep said that lagna

in divisions could be used to differentiate twins. When houses were

not taken from lagna in divisions, I could not understand what he

was saying. I was hoping he would explain how he would use lagna in

divisions to distinguish between twins in the example I gave, but he

has evaded it.

>

> You are welcome to draw your conclusions and use the approach that

your intellect finds acceptable. But I argue that there is no way to

distinguish between twins and closely born people without

considering houses in navamsa and other divisions. I will not say

that this is "proof" of my approach. But, to me, this is a

motivation to stick to the approach taught bny tradition.

>

> Parasara did mention houses from the amsa of atma karaka and the

amsa of lagna. It strongly suggests to me that houses can be taken

in amsas. But, again, I want to clarify that I never offered

a "proof".

>

> 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 PVR,

> > I would love to see this issue clarified. I think Vijayadas has

> > perhaps not clearly conveyed to you what he wants to say. He

wants the

> > exact and unambiguous proof that Parashar instructs us to

construct D-

> > n CHARTS. If Parasara says "see parents in Dwadasamsa", why is

the

> > only logical possibility that you have to construct a new D-12

chart

> > in which you nominate the house 1 of the chart as the zodiacal

sign

> > associated with the Dwadasamsa occupied by the Lagna in D-1 and

use

> > that NEW chart's 4th and 9th houses? Why not simply consider

strengths

> > and weaknesses of the D-1 chart's 4th and 9th house lords'

Dwadasamsas?

> > All this confusion could be easily removed if you would show one

place

> > in classical texts where it says effectively (for

example) "construct

> > a Navamsha CHART by taking the zodiacal sign associated with the

> > Navamsha position of Lagna in Rasi chart and make that sign the

first

> > house in the Navamsha CHART"... or some such thing. Otherwise,

he (VP)

> > is correct (IMHO), it is not logically obvious from the 2

statements

> > you cite.

> >

> > Sundeep

> >

> > > 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.