Bhavas in D-charts

[Guest guest]

Like I stated a couple of days ago, I was taught to use houses in D-charts, and

I do. You and probably many others, especially on this list, do so too.

 

However, merely that should never stop us complacent in the quest to seek out

the truth. Narasimha said too that Parasara wasn't unambiguous one way or the

other. The purport in that line is not insignificant, though the mention of

houses in the reference to a rajayoga that he provided seems good enough.

 

The problem with Pradeep's standpoint, apart from the couple of ill-chosen

adjectives, is that he isn't forthcoming with what he believes is what we

should be doing alternatively. Unless we have a bank of academic and/or

statistical evidence that is irrefutably conclusive, we can't plump for one or

the other. Each of the astrological giants you've mentioned were doubtless

luminaries who wouldn't have said what they did lightly, but even that

shouldn't stop us from thinking for ourselves too. I admire folk like Sanjay

and Narasimha primarily for this very trait of being able to think for

themselves.

 

As I write this, I'm reminded of how a chunk of Darwinism is now proved wrong.

He'd predicated the idea of the survival of the fittest. He didn't stop where

he should have, i.e. at that being the strategy which best fitted an organism

to exist in a particular environment. Instead, he ignored that man is a social

animal. Hence, the idea that the individual is selected as being fittest to

survive simply by being the most violent, the best physical specimen, is

nonsensical. There's enough evidence today to suggest, for example, women

select as mates men who are seen as steady and reliable rather than the most

sexually compelling. S'prised? :^)

Utpal Pathak <vedic_pathak > wrote:

All Shri Narsimhaji, Vijaydas

 

I am interfering in the discussions only for once to convey some 'facts' which

may not be in your knowledge.Energumen-----Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how

was the play?

Mail - You care about security. So do we.

[Guest guest]

Dear Energumen,

 

>Each of the astrological giants you've mentioned were doubtless

>luminaries who wouldn't have said what they did lightly, but even

>that shouldn't stop us from thinking for ourselves too.

 

I say exactly that. Nothing can be accepted as Working Principle if

it doesn't work with fair consistency on practical charts and hence

there is always scope of research. but one should be atleast have a

open mind to test those before rejecting it on the face of it.

 

>There's enough evidence today to suggest, for example, women select

>as mates men who are seen as steady and reliable rather than the

>most sexually compelling. S'prised? :^)

 

Not at all suprised..fortunately, women/Girls today have grown up

and became very intelligent selecting their mates. The days of Road

side Romeo are over.

 

regards,

Utpal

PS: ALL STATISTICS ARE 54.9% RELIABLE.

 

vedic astrology, Energumen <vernalagnia>

wrote:

> Dear Utpal,

>

> Like I stated a couple of days ago, I was taught to use houses in

D-charts, and I do. You and probably many others, especially on this

list, do so too.

>

> However, merely that should never stop us complacent in the quest

to seek out the truth. Narasimha said too that Parasara wasn't

unambiguous one way or the other. The purport in that line is not

insignificant, though the mention of houses in the reference to a

rajayoga that he provided seems good enough.

>

> The problem with Pradeep's standpoint, apart from the couple of

ill-chosen adjectives, is that he isn't forthcoming with what he

believes is what we should be doing alternatively. Unless we have a

bank of academic and/or statistical evidence that is irrefutably

conclusive, we can't plump for one or the other. Each of the

astrological giants you've mentioned were doubtless luminaries who

wouldn't have said what they did lightly, but even that shouldn't

stop us from thinking for ourselves too. I admire folk like Sanjay

and Narasimha primarily for this very trait of being able to think

for themselves.

>

> As I write this, I'm reminded of how a chunk of Darwinism is now

proved wrong. He'd predicated the idea of the survival of the

fittest. He didn't stop where he should have, i.e. at that being the

strategy which best fitted an organism to exist in a particular

environment. Instead, he ignored that man is a social animal. Hence,

the idea that the individual is selected as being fittest to survive

simply by being the most violent, the best physical specimen, is

nonsensical. There's enough evidence today to suggest, for example,

women select as mates men who are seen as steady and reliable rather

than the most sexually compelling. S'prised? :^)

>

>

> Utpal Pathak <vedic_pathak> wrote:

> All Shri Narsimhaji, Vijaydas

>

> I am interfering in the discussions only for once to convey

some 'facts' which may not be in your knowledge.

>

>

> Energumen

>

> -----

> Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play?

>

>

>

> Mail - You care about security. So do we.