Santhanam, Parasara's Verse and Houses in Navamsa!

[Guest guest]

Namaste friends,

 

I will not engage in a debate with Pradeep, who seems to make up his own rules

to play by and keeps changing them as the debate progresses. But I wanted to

write in detail about the verse I mentioned yesterday for the benefit of those

who are interested and also those who may be confused by all this.

 

I am using the ITrans convention for transliteration. You can cut & paste this

text into software supporting ITrans (e.g. "ITranslator 99" from Omkarananda

Ashram) and see the text in Sanskrit.

 

lagna Shadvargake chaivamekakheTayutekShite |

rAjayogo bhavatyeva nirvishaMkam dvijottama || 39-13

pUrNa dR^iShTe pUrNayogamardhadR^iShTe.ardhameva ca |

pAdadR^iShTe pAdayogamiti GYaeyaM kramAt phalam || 39-14

 

This verse means that if lagna in all the six divisions is occupied or aspected

by the same planet, it constitutes a raja yoga. Based on the fullness of the

aspect, the strength of the yoga is to be decided.

 

One can argue that this is rasi drishti (which does not need houses), but the

mention of full, half and quarter aspects makes it quite obvious that graha

drishti based on houses is being referred to. In rasi drishti, there are no

grades of aspects.

 

As a matter of fact, Sri Santhanam did not translate the verse any differently

than I would. In fact, I see no scope to translate differently. Under his

notes, Sri Santhanam wrote the following:

 

"Aspects are referred to in the divisional charts here. I am unable to fully

conceive the logic in aspects in divisional charts for the sage himself

referred to the longitudinal aspectual evaluations in an earlier chapter.

Without commenting further on this controversial aspect I leave it at that,

accepting my limitations to explain this fully."

 

While some people seem to be quite arrogant in vehemently and forcefully

dismissing the use of houses in navamsa despite the long history of the

practice by great scholars, one may notice that the great Santhanam was quite

humble. He did not question the verse or try to misinterpret it or give

alternate interpretations. He was a scholar. He clearly recognized what this

verse meant and what it implied!!! He simply accepted his limitation to explain

it further or make sense of its obvious implication.

 

That is why I respect Sri Santhanam so much. Even if I disagree with him in a

few places based on careful study, it is nothing personal. As a person, I

respect him immensely. He is a great role model to aspiring scholars.

 

Now, intelligent readers should note that Santhanam's "inability to explain this

fully" does not mean that the verse is wrong or questionable. As Santhanam

himself accepted, it was his "limitation" that he could not "explain this

fully". Now, let me try to "explain this fully". (Note to Pradeep: I will NOT

respond to any questions or comments from you.)

 

If Jupiter is at 2 deg in Pisces (i.e. in 0:00-3:20), he is exalted is Cancer in

navamsa. Why is it called Cancer? We know that Aries, Taurus etc are divisions

of the "physical" zodiac and Cancer is physically the region between 90 deg and

120 deg. Why didn't sages come up with new names for the navamsa divisions,

drekkana divisions etc? Why are all those divisions mapped back to the same 12

signs? When we say that Jupiter in the above example is in Cancer in navamsa,

do we mean that he is between 90 deg and 120 deg? Otherwise, why is it called

"Cancer" for God's sake?

 

This is the crux of the issue. If one understands this clearly, there is no

confusion and the above verse of Parasara makes perfect sense.

 

Jupiter in the above example is in Pisces physically. So he is at 2 deg in

Pisces as far as Rasi chart or rasi space (i.e. physical space) is concerned.

But navamsa is a different chart altogether. It is a different space

altogether. It is not a physical space and is an abstract space (that is why

only rasi chart shows the physical existence, while navamsa shows an abstract

environment known as dharmik environment). A planet in 0:00-3:20 of Pisces in

the phsycial space (rasi) is mapped in this abstract navamsa space to 0:00 to

30:00 of Cancer. In other words, a planet in 330:00-333:20 of the zodiac in the

physical space is mapped in this abstract navamsa space to 90:00-120:00 of the

zodiac. So Jupiter at 2 deg in Pisces in the physical space (rasi) is at 18 deg

in Cancer in the navamsa space. (Side note: In fact, this is the very foundation

of the casting of navamsa-dwadasamsa chart. Navamsa-dwadasamsa is not based on

dividing rasis into 108 parts and linearly mapping them. Navamsa is the

intermediate step. It is based on casting navamsa, treating it as rasi and

finding its dwadasamsa. The sign occupied in navamsa-dwadasamsa by a planet at

2 deg in Pisces in rasi is the same as the sign occupied in dwadasamsa by a

planet at 18 deg in Cancer in rasi!)

 

If you realize this, then the fact that "the sage himself referred to the

longitudinal aspectual evaluations in an earlier chapter" is no longer a

concern and does not become a limitation in "accepting this fully".

 

Some may tell you that Cancer in navamsa is not the same as Cancer in rasi.

Don't kid yourself. Otherwise, it wouldn't be called "Cancer". They correspond

to the same 30 degrees in the zodiac, albeit seen from two different spaces.

Cancer in rasi chart corresponds to the same 30 degrees in the physical space,

while Cancer in navamsa chart corresponds to a various smaller regions when

seen thru the physical space. But once you enter the navamsa space thru one of

those 3:20 regions in the physical space and see things thru the navamsa space,

you are in the same old Cancer, i.e. 90-120 deg. If 90-120 deg is the second

house from 60-90 deg in the zodiac in one space, it is so in another space too.

Period.

 

If the planet is in 330:00-333:20 in the rasi chart, that is so in the physical

rasi space. Once you are dealing with navamsa, don't think that it is still in

330:00-333:20. When viewed thru the navamsa space, it is NOT in that region. It

is in 90:00-120:00 when viewed thru this space.

 

Those who do not understand and appreciate this simple concept will tell you not

to take houses in navamsa (and other divisions). But they will not be able to

explain the verse I quoted above. Either they will have to accept their

limitation in explaining it, like Sri Santhanam did (there is nothing wrong

with it), or give some misinterpretation, like Santhanam did not. On the other

hand, if you get this simple concept into your system, there are no issues. The

choice is yours.

 

There are many other references to houses in amsas by Parasara, but they are more ambiguous.

 

Despite my strong (and quite justified, in my view) views on taking houses in

navamsa and other divisional charts, I do respect those who think otherwise. I

sincerely hope that they too can respect my views and agree to disagree. If

they do not try to force me to accept their views or throw around objectionable

adjectives to describe my views, I will not force them to accept their views.

 

Understanding that houses in divisions are important is one thing and

understanding how to use them and how to use houses in rasi chart and how to

correlate the two is quite another thing. But that is not my focus for today.

 

May Jupiter's light shine on us,

Narasimha

-------------------------------Free Jyotish

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

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

Sri Jagannath Centre (SJC) website:

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

[Guest guest]

Om Krishna Guru

 

Namaste Narasimha Ji,

 

A very good idea. I know you are a very busy man like any

one in the list, so please spend your free time in writing

and finishing the T.P book instead. We are all eagerly

waiting for that book.

 

Regards

Raghunatha Rao

 

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

<pvr@c...> wrote:

> Namaste friends,

>

> I will not engage in a debate with Pradeep, who seems to make up

his own rules to play by and keeps changing them as the debate

progresses. But I wanted to write in detail about the verse I

mentioned yesterday for the benefit of those who are interested and

also those who may be confused by all this.

>

> I am using the ITrans convention for transliteration. You can cut &

paste this text into software supporting ITrans (e.g. "ITranslator

99" from Omkarananda Ashram) and see the text in Sanskrit.

>

> lagna Shadvargake chaivamekakheTayutekShite |

> rAjayogo bhavatyeva nirvishaMkam dvijottama || 39-13

> pUrNa dR^iShTe pUrNayogamardhadR^iShTe.ardhameva ca |

> pAdadR^iShTe pAdayogamiti GYaeyaM kramAt phalam || 39-14

>

> This verse means that if lagna in all the six divisions is occupied

or aspected by the same planet, it constitutes a raja yoga. Based on

the fullness of the aspect, the strength of the yoga is to be decided.

>

> One can argue that this is rasi drishti (which does not need

houses), but the mention of full, half and quarter aspects makes it

quite obvious that graha drishti based on houses is being referred

to. In rasi drishti, there are no grades of aspects.

>

> As a matter of fact, Sri Santhanam did not translate the verse any

differently than I would. In fact, I see no scope to translate

differently. Under his notes, Sri Santhanam wrote the following:

>

> "Aspects are referred to in the divisional charts here. I am unable

to fully conceive the logic in aspects in divisional charts for the

sage himself referred to the longitudinal aspectual evaluations in an

earlier chapter. Without commenting further on this controversial

aspect I leave it at that, accepting my limitations to explain this

fully."

>

> While some people seem to be quite arrogant in vehemently and

forcefully dismissing the use of houses in navamsa despite the long

history of the practice by great scholars, one may notice that the

great Santhanam was quite humble. He did not question the verse or

try to misinterpret it or give alternate interpretations. He was a

scholar. He clearly recognized what this verse meant and what it

implied!!! He simply accepted his limitation to explain it further or

make sense of its obvious implication.

>

> That is why I respect Sri Santhanam so much. Even if I disagree

with him in a few places based on careful study, it is nothing

personal. As a person, I respect him immensely. He is a great role

model to aspiring scholars.

>

> Now, intelligent readers should note that Santhanam's "inability to

explain this fully" does not mean that the verse is wrong or

questionable. As Santhanam himself accepted, it was his "limitation"

that he could not "explain this fully". Now, let me try to "explain

this fully". (Note to Pradeep: I will NOT respond to any questions or

comments from you.)

>

> If Jupiter is at 2 deg in Pisces (i.e. in 0:00-3:20), he is exalted

is Cancer in navamsa. Why is it called Cancer? We know that Aries,

Taurus etc are divisions of the "physical" zodiac and Cancer is

physically the region between 90 deg and 120 deg. Why didn't sages

come up with new names for the navamsa divisions, drekkana divisions

etc? Why are all those divisions mapped back to the same 12 signs?

When we say that Jupiter in the above example is in Cancer in

navamsa, do we mean that he is between 90 deg and 120 deg? Otherwise,

why is it called "Cancer" for God's sake?

>

> This is the crux of the issue. If one understands this clearly,

there is no confusion and the above verse of Parasara makes perfect

sense.

>

> Jupiter in the above example is in Pisces physically. So he is at 2

deg in Pisces as far as Rasi chart or rasi space (i.e. physical

space) is concerned. But navamsa is a different chart altogether. It

is a different space altogether. It is not a physical space and is an

abstract space (that is why only rasi chart shows the physical

existence, while navamsa shows an abstract environment known as

dharmik environment). A planet in 0:00-3:20 of Pisces in the phsycial

space (rasi) is mapped in this abstract navamsa space to 0:00 to

30:00 of Cancer. In other words, a planet in 330:00-333:20 of the

zodiac in the physical space is mapped in this abstract navamsa space

to 90:00-120:00 of the zodiac. So Jupiter at 2 deg in Pisces in the

physical space (rasi) is at 18 deg in Cancer in the navamsa space.

(Side note: In fact, this is the very foundation of the casting of

navamsa-dwadasamsa chart. Navamsa-dwadasamsa is not based on dividing

rasis into 108 parts and linearly mapping them. Navamsa is the

intermediate step. It is based on casting navamsa, treating it as

rasi and finding its dwadasamsa. The sign occupied in navamsa-

dwadasamsa by a planet at 2 deg in Pisces in rasi is the same as the

sign occupied in dwadasamsa by a planet at 18 deg in Cancer in rasi!)

>

> If you realize this, then the fact that "the sage himself referred

to the longitudinal aspectual evaluations in an earlier chapter" is

no longer a concern and does not become a limitation in "accepting

this fully".

>

> Some may tell you that Cancer in navamsa is not the same as Cancer

in rasi. Don't kid yourself. Otherwise, it wouldn't be

called "Cancer". They correspond to the same 30 degrees in the

zodiac, albeit seen from two different spaces. Cancer in rasi chart

corresponds to the same 30 degrees in the physical space, while

Cancer in navamsa chart corresponds to a various smaller regions when

seen thru the physical space. But once you enter the navamsa space

thru one of those 3:20 regions in the physical space and see things

thru the navamsa space, you are in the same old Cancer, i.e. 90-120

deg. If 90-120 deg is the second house from 60-90 deg in the zodiac

in one space, it is so in another space too. Period.

>

> If the planet is in 330:00-333:20 in the rasi chart, that is so in

the physical rasi space. Once you are dealing with navamsa, don't

think that it is still in 330:00-333:20. When viewed thru the navamsa

space, it is NOT in that region. It is in 90:00-120:00 when viewed

thru this space.

>

> Those who do not understand and appreciate this simple concept will

tell you not to take houses in navamsa (and other divisions). But

they will not be able to explain the verse I quoted above. Either

they will have to accept their limitation in explaining it, like Sri

Santhanam did (there is nothing wrong with it), or give some

misinterpretation, like Santhanam did not. On the other hand, if you

get this simple concept into your system, there are no issues. The

choice is yours.

>

> There are many other references to houses in amsas by Parasara, but

they are more ambiguous.

>

> Despite my strong (and quite justified, in my view) views on taking

houses in navamsa and other divisional charts, I do respect those who

think otherwise. I sincerely hope that they too can respect my views

and agree to disagree. If they do not try to force me to accept their

views or throw around objectionable adjectives to describe my views,

I will not force them to accept their views.

>

> Understanding that houses in divisions are important is one thing

and understanding how to use them and how to use houses in rasi chart

and how to correlate the two is quite another thing. But that is not

my focus for today.

>

> 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

> Sri Jagannath Centre (SJC) website: http://www.SriJagannath.org

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

[Guest guest]

Namaste,

 

What is the title of the chapter where this shloka appears ? The

traslation I have chapeter 39 does not have this shlok. Could you

please confirm the title and chapter number so I can look up the

shloka in the correct chapter.

 

Thanks

 

....

 

On 7/15/05, Narasimha P.V.R. Rao <pvr wrote:

> Namaste friends,

>

> I will not engage in a debate with Pradeep, who seems to make up his own

> rules to play by and keeps changing them as the debate progresses. But I

> wanted to write in detail about the verse I mentioned yesterday for the

> benefit of those who are interested and also those who may be confused by

> all this.

>

> I am using the ITrans convention for transliteration. You can cut & paste

> this text into software supporting ITrans (e.g. "ITranslator 99" from

> Omkarananda Ashram) and see the text in Sanskrit.

>

> lagna Shadvargake chaivamekakheTayutekShite |

> rAjayogo bhavatyeva nirvishaMkam dvijottama || 39-13

> pUrNa dR^iShTe pUrNayogamardhadR^iShTe.ardhameva ca |

> pAdadR^iShTe pAdayogamiti GYaeyaM kramAt phalam || 39-14

>

> This verse means that if lagna in all the six divisions is occupied or

> aspected by the same planet, it constitutes a raja yoga. Based on the

> fullness of the aspect, the strength of the yoga is to be decided.

>

> One can argue that this is rasi drishti (which does not need houses), but

> the mention of full, half and quarter aspects makes it quite obvious that

> graha drishti based on houses is being referred to. In rasi drishti, there

> are no grades of aspects.

>

> As a matter of fact, Sri Santhanam did not translate the verse any

> differently than I would. In fact, I see no scope to translate differently.

> Under his notes, Sri Santhanam wrote the following:

>

> "Aspects are referred to in the divisional charts here. I am unable to fully

> conceive the logic in aspects in divisional charts for the sage himself

> referred to the longitudinal aspectual evaluations in an earlier chapter.

> Without commenting further on this controversial aspect I leave it at that,

> accepting my limitations to explain this fully."

>

> While some people seem to be quite arrogant in vehemently and forcefully

> dismissing the use of houses in navamsa despite the long history of the

> practice by great scholars, one may notice that the great Santhanam was

> quite humble. He did not question the verse or try to misinterpret it or

> give alternate interpretations. He was a scholar. He clearly recognized what

> this verse meant and what it implied!!! He simply accepted his limitation to

> explain it further or make sense of its obvious implication.

>

> That is why I respect Sri Santhanam so much. Even if I disagree with him in

> a few places based on careful study, it is nothing personal. As a person, I

> respect him immensely. He is a great role model to aspiring scholars.

>

> Now, intelligent readers should note that Santhanam's "inability to explain

> this fully" does not mean that the verse is wrong or questionable. As

> Santhanam himself accepted, it was his "limitation" that he could not

> "explain this fully". Now, let me try to "explain this fully". (Note to

> Pradeep: I will NOT respond to any questions or comments from you.)

>

> If Jupiter is at 2 deg in Pisces (i.e. in 0:00-3:20), he is exalted is

> Cancer in navamsa. Why is it called Cancer? We know that Aries, Taurus etc

> are divisions of the "physical" zodiac and Cancer is physically the region

> between 90 deg and 120 deg. Why didn't sages come up with new names for the

> navamsa divisions, drekkana divisions etc? Why are all those divisions

> mapped back to the same 12 signs? When we say that Jupiter in the above

> example is in Cancer in navamsa, do we mean that he is between 90 deg and

> 120 deg? Otherwise, why is it called "Cancer" for God's sake?

>

> This is the crux of the issue. If one understands this clearly, there is no

> confusion and the above verse of Parasara makes perfect sense.

>

> Jupiter in the above example is in Pisces physically. So he is at 2 deg in

> Pisces as far as Rasi chart or rasi space (i.e. physical space) is

> concerned. But navamsa is a different chart altogether. It is a different

> space altogether. It is not a physical space and is an abstract space (that

> is why only rasi chart shows the physical existence, while navamsa shows an

> abstract environment known as dharmik environment). A planet in 0:00-3:20 of

> Pisces in the phsycial space (rasi) is mapped in this abstract navamsa space

> to 0:00 to 30:00 of Cancer. In other words, a planet in 330:00-333:20 of the

> zodiac in the physical space is mapped in this abstract navamsa space to

> 90:00-120:00 of the zodiac. So Jupiter at 2 deg in Pisces in the physical

> space (rasi) is at 18 deg in Cancer in the navamsa space. (Side note: In

> fact, this is the very foundation of the casting of navamsa-dwadasamsa

> chart. Navamsa-dwadasamsa is not based on dividing rasis into 108 parts and

> linearly mapping them. Navamsa is the intermediate step. It is based on

> casting navamsa, treating it as rasi and finding its dwadasamsa. The sign

> occupied in navamsa-dwadasamsa by a planet at 2 deg in Pisces in rasi is the

> same as the sign occupied in dwadasamsa by a planet at 18 deg in Cancer in

> rasi!)

>

> If you realize this, then the fact that "the sage himself referred to the

> longitudinal aspectual evaluations in an earlier chapter" is no longer a

> concern and does not become a limitation in "accepting this fully".

>

> Some may tell you that Cancer in navamsa is not the same as Cancer in rasi.

> Don't kid yourself. Otherwise, it wouldn't be called "Cancer". They

> correspond to the same 30 degrees in the zodiac, albeit seen from two

> different spaces. Cancer in rasi chart corresponds to the same 30 degrees in

> the physical space, while Cancer in navamsa chart corresponds to a various

> smaller regions when seen thru the physical space. But once you enter the

> navamsa space thru one of those 3:20 regions in the physical space and see

> things thru the navamsa space, you are in the same old Cancer, i.e. 90-120

> deg. If 90-120 deg is the second house from 60-90 deg in the zodiac in one

> space, it is so in another space too. Period.

>

> If the planet is in 330:00-333:20 in the rasi chart, that is so in the

> physical rasi space. Once you are dealing with navamsa, don't think that it

> is still in 330:00-333:20. When viewed thru the navamsa space, it is NOT in

> that region. It is in 90:00-120:00 when viewed thru this space.

>

> Those who do not understand and appreciate this simple concept will tell you

> not to take houses in navamsa (and other divisions). But they will not be

> able to explain the verse I quoted above. Either they will have to accept

> their limitation in explaining it, like Sri Santhanam did (there is nothing

> wrong with it), or give some misinterpretation, like Santhanam did not. On

> the other hand, if you get this simple concept into your system, there are

> no issues. The choice is yours.

>

> There are many other references to houses in amsas by Parasara, but they are

> more ambiguous.

>

> Despite my strong (and quite justified, in my view) views on taking houses

> in navamsa and other divisional charts, I do respect those who think

> otherwise. I sincerely hope that they too can respect my views and agree to

> disagree. If they do not try to force me to accept their views or throw

> around objectionable adjectives to describe my views, I will not force them

> to accept their views.

>

> Understanding that houses in divisions are important is one thing and

> understanding how to use them and how to use houses in rasi chart and how to

> correlate the two is quite another thing. But that is not my focus for

> today.

>

> 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

> Sri Jagannath Centre (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 .......

>

>

>

>

> ________________________________

>

>

> Visit your group "vedic astrology" on the web.

>

>

> vedic astrology

>

>

>

> vedic astrology

>

>

>

> ________________________________

>

[Guest guest]

|| Om Gurave Namah ||

Namaste Narasimhaji,

 

Thanks you for taking the pains to get the quotes and teach us. Your

teachings can teach even the dullest of student! .

 

It seems that still some are unable to comprehend or get Shlokas in

some version of BPHS. I never needed the exact explicit reference. I

always felt many other shlokas were refering to houses in Divisionals

and always understood them as was taught to me.

 

For those who are unable to find the reference I give a URL which has

many sanskrit documents for the public.

 

http://sanskrit.gde.to/doc_z_misc_sociology_astrology/par3140.itx

 

A simple find in your web browser with any of the keywords given

below should get you

 

lagnashhaD.hvargake chaivamekakheTayutexite |

rAjayogo bhavatyeva nirvishaMka dvijottama || 13||

 

pUrNadR^ishhTe pUrnayogamardhadR^ishhTe.ardhameva cha |

pAdadR^ishhTe pAdayogamiti GYeyaM kramAt.h phalam.h || 14||

 

Still some can can argue whether this Shloka itself is authentic or

this BPHS version is accurate!.

 

Warm Regards

Sanjay P

 

Hari Om Tat Sat

 

 

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

<pvr@c...> wrote:

> Namaste friends,

>

> I will not engage in a debate with Pradeep, who seems to make up his

own rules to play by and keeps changing them as the debate progresses.

But I wanted to write in detail about the verse I mentioned yesterday

for the benefit of those who are interested and also those who may be

confused by all this.

>

> I am using the ITrans convention for transliteration. You can cut &

paste this text into software supporting ITrans (e.g. "ITranslator 99"

from Omkarananda Ashram) and see the text in Sanskrit.

>

> lagna Shadvargake chaivamekakheTayutekShite |

> rAjayogo bhavatyeva nirvishaMkam dvijottama || 39-13

> pUrNa dR^iShTe pUrNayogamardhadR^iShTe.ardhameva ca |

> pAdadR^iShTe pAdayogamiti GYaeyaM kramAt phalam || 39-14

>

> This verse means that if lagna in all the six divisions is occupied

or aspected by the same planet, it constitutes a raja yoga. Based on

the fullness of the aspect, the strength of the yoga is to be decided.

>

> One can argue that this is rasi drishti (which does not need

houses), but the mention of full, half and quarter aspects makes it

quite obvious that graha drishti based on houses is being referred to.

In rasi drishti, there are no grades of aspects.

>

> As a matter of fact, Sri Santhanam did not translate the verse any

differently than I would. In fact, I see no scope to translate

differently. Under his notes, Sri Santhanam wrote the following:

>

> "Aspects are referred to in the divisional charts here. I am unable

to fully conceive the logic in aspects in divisional charts for the

sage himself referred to the longitudinal aspectual evaluations in an

earlier chapter. Without commenting further on this controversial

aspect I leave it at that, accepting my limitations to explain this

fully."

>

> While some people seem to be quite arrogant in vehemently and

forcefully dismissing the use of houses in navamsa despite the long

history of the practice by great scholars, one may notice that the

great Santhanam was quite humble. He did not question the verse or try

to misinterpret it or give alternate interpretations. He was a

scholar. He clearly recognized what this verse meant and what it

implied!!! He simply accepted his limitation to explain it further or

make sense of its obvious implication.

>

> That is why I respect Sri Santhanam so much. Even if I disagree with

him in a few places based on careful study, it is nothing personal. As

a person, I respect him immensely. He is a great role model to

aspiring scholars.

>

> Now, intelligent readers should note that Santhanam's "inability to

explain this fully" does not mean that the verse is wrong or

questionable. As Santhanam himself accepted, it was his "limitation"

that he could not "explain this fully". Now, let me try to "explain

this fully". (Note to Pradeep: I will NOT respond to any questions or

comments from you.)

>

> If Jupiter is at 2 deg in Pisces (i.e. in 0:00-3:20), he is exalted

is Cancer in navamsa. Why is it called Cancer? We know that Aries,

Taurus etc are divisions of the "physical" zodiac and Cancer is

physically the region between 90 deg and 120 deg. Why didn't sages

come up with new names for the navamsa divisions, drekkana divisions

etc? Why are all those divisions mapped back to the same 12 signs?

When we say that Jupiter in the above example is in Cancer in navamsa,

do we mean that he is between 90 deg and 120 deg? Otherwise, why is it

called "Cancer" for God's sake?

>

> This is the crux of the issue. If one understands this clearly,

there is no confusion and the above verse of Parasara makes perfect sense.

>

> Jupiter in the above example is in Pisces physically. So he is at 2

deg in Pisces as far as Rasi chart or rasi space (i.e. physical space)

is concerned. But navamsa is a different chart altogether. It is a

different space altogether. It is not a physical space and is an

abstract space (that is why only rasi chart shows the physical

existence, while navamsa shows an abstract environment known as

dharmik environment). A planet in 0:00-3:20 of Pisces in the phsycial

space (rasi) is mapped in this abstract navamsa space to 0:00 to 30:00

of Cancer. In other words, a planet in 330:00-333:20 of the zodiac in

the physical space is mapped in this abstract navamsa space to

90:00-120:00 of the zodiac. So Jupiter at 2 deg in Pisces in the

physical space (rasi) is at 18 deg in Cancer in the navamsa space.

(Side note: In fact, this is the very foundation of the casting of

navamsa-dwadasamsa chart. Navamsa-dwadasamsa is not based on dividing

rasis into 108 parts and linearly mapping them. Navamsa is the

intermediate step. It is based on casting navamsa, treating it as rasi

and finding its dwadasamsa. The sign occupied in navamsa-dwadasamsa by

a planet at 2 deg in Pisces in rasi is the same as the sign occupied

in dwadasamsa by a planet at 18 deg in Cancer in rasi!)

>

> If you realize this, then the fact that "the sage himself referred

to the longitudinal aspectual evaluations in an earlier chapter" is no

longer a concern and does not become a limitation in "accepting this

fully".

>

> Some may tell you that Cancer in navamsa is not the same as Cancer

in rasi. Don't kid yourself. Otherwise, it wouldn't be called

"Cancer". They correspond to the same 30 degrees in the zodiac, albeit

seen from two different spaces. Cancer in rasi chart corresponds to

the same 30 degrees in the physical space, while Cancer in navamsa

chart corresponds to a various smaller regions when seen thru the

physical space. But once you enter the navamsa space thru one of those

3:20 regions in the physical space and see things thru the navamsa

space, you are in the same old Cancer, i.e. 90-120 deg. If 90-120 deg

is the second house from 60-90 deg in the zodiac in one space, it is

so in another space too. Period.

>

> If the planet is in 330:00-333:20 in the rasi chart, that is so in

the physical rasi space. Once you are dealing with navamsa, don't

think that it is still in 330:00-333:20. When viewed thru the navamsa

space, it is NOT in that region. It is in 90:00-120:00 when viewed

thru this space.

>

> Those who do not understand and appreciate this simple concept will

tell you not to take houses in navamsa (and other divisions). But they

will not be able to explain the verse I quoted above. Either they will

have to accept their limitation in explaining it, like Sri Santhanam

did (there is nothing wrong with it), or give some misinterpretation,

like Santhanam did not. On the other hand, if you get this simple

concept into your system, there are no issues. The choice is yours.

>

> There are many other references to houses in amsas by Parasara, but

they are more ambiguous.

>

> Despite my strong (and quite justified, in my view) views on taking

houses in navamsa and other divisional charts, I do respect those who

think otherwise. I sincerely hope that they too can respect my views

and agree to disagree. If they do not try to force me to accept their

views or throw around objectionable adjectives to describe my views, I

will not force them to accept their views.

>

> Understanding that houses in divisions are important is one thing

and understanding how to use them and how to use houses in rasi chart

and how to correlate the two is quite another thing. But that is not

my focus for today.

>

> 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

> Sri Jagannath Centre (SJC) website: http://www.SriJagannath.org

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

[Guest guest]

Namaste,

 

Your sarcasm is uncalled for. Whether parashar unambiguously mentioned

using divisions as separate charts is not a proven fact. Hanging a

thesis based on one verse is a dangerous path without knowing the

context of the shloka. I have GC Sharmas traslation and I am not sure

this shloka appears in that chapter when I briefly glanced at it.

Thats why I asked for the title of the chapter where this shlok is

presented.If you know the title I would appreciate if you had just

sent that instead of holier than though preaching.

 

Your sarcasms won't get you anywhere in predicting things. You may

like to hang on one thread to build an entire preaching brigade. To me

the proof is in whther this actually works in practice and I do not

mean one or two charts where events are known. One can advance any

thesis once the event is known.

 

As you so sarcastically mentioned that some may argue whether the

shloka is authentic or not. I do not think noone can say for sure what

is authentic and what is not as no one knows or can prove who this

Parashar was or this document as it exists now has been the origianl

one or has been adulatrated.

 

Question also remains what about some of the insatnces Mr. Vaijaydas

mentioned that point to the references where it is stated that these

are divisions and not separate charts ?

 

If you want to use them use them. As narasimha has said noone is

forcing anyone to use them and conversely I am saying who is

preventing you are anyone from using it.

 

If you can predict accurately in high percentage of cases, no one will

even question whether you are using grahas in our solar system or some

other galaxy or the ones mentioned in Star Trek. The rest of activity

is just pure academic pedagogy of very little worth or consequence to

the public at large.

 

....

 

On 7/18/05, sanjayprabhakaran <sanjaychettiar wrote:

> || Om Gurave Namah ||

> Namaste Narasimhaji,

>

> Thanks you for taking the pains to get the quotes and teach us. Your

> teachings can teach even the dullest of student! .

>

> It seems that still some are unable to comprehend or get Shlokas in

> some version of BPHS. I never needed the exact explicit reference. I

> always felt many other shlokas were refering to houses in Divisionals

> and always understood them as was taught to me.

>

> For those who are unable to find the reference I give a URL which has

> many sanskrit documents for the public.

>

> http://sanskrit.gde.to/doc_z_misc_sociology_astrology/par3140.itx

>

> A simple find in your web browser with any of the keywords given

> below should get you

>

> lagnashhaD.hvargake chaivamekakheTayutexite |

> rAjayogo bhavatyeva nirvishaMka dvijottama || 13||

>

> pUrNadR^ishhTe pUrnayogamardhadR^ishhTe.ardhameva cha |

> pAdadR^ishhTe pAdayogamiti GYeyaM kramAt.h phalam.h || 14||

>

> Still some can can argue whether this Shloka itself is authentic or

> this BPHS version is accurate!.

>

> Warm Regards

> Sanjay P

>

> Hari Om Tat Sat

>

>

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

>

> <pvr@c...> wrote:

> > Namaste friends,

> >

> > I will not engage in a debate with Pradeep, who seems to make up his

> own rules to play by and keeps changing them as the debate progresses.

> But I wanted to write in detail about the verse I mentioned yesterday

> for the benefit of those who are interested and also those who may be

> confused by all this.

> >

> > I am using the ITrans convention for transliteration. You can cut &

> paste this text into software supporting ITrans (e.g. "ITranslator 99"

> from Omkarananda Ashram) and see the text in Sanskrit.

> >

> > lagna Shadvargake chaivamekakheTayutekShite |

> > rAjayogo bhavatyeva nirvishaMkam dvijottama || 39-13

> > pUrNa dR^iShTe pUrNayogamardhadR^iShTe.ardhameva ca |

> > pAdadR^iShTe pAdayogamiti GYaeyaM kramAt phalam || 39-14

> >

> > This verse means that if lagna in all the six divisions is occupied

> or aspected by the same planet, it constitutes a raja yoga. Based on

> the fullness of the aspect, the strength of the yoga is to be decided.

> >

> > One can argue that this is rasi drishti (which does not need

> houses), but the mention of full, half and quarter aspects makes it

> quite obvious that graha drishti based on houses is being referred to.

> In rasi drishti, there are no grades of aspects.

> >

> > As a matter of fact, Sri Santhanam did not translate the verse any

> differently than I would. In fact, I see no scope to translate

> differently. Under his notes, Sri Santhanam wrote the following:

> >

> > "Aspects are referred to in the divisional charts here. I am unable

> to fully conceive the logic in aspects in divisional charts for the

> sage himself referred to the longitudinal aspectual evaluations in an

> earlier chapter. Without commenting further on this controversial

> aspect I leave it at that, accepting my limitations to explain this

> fully."

> >

> > While some people seem to be quite arrogant in vehemently and

> forcefully dismissing the use of houses in navamsa despite the long

> history of the practice by great scholars, one may notice that the

> great Santhanam was quite humble. He did not question the verse or try

> to misinterpret it or give alternate interpretations. He was a

> scholar. He clearly recognized what this verse meant and what it

> implied!!! He simply accepted his limitation to explain it further or

> make sense of its obvious implication.

> >

> > That is why I respect Sri Santhanam so much. Even if I disagree with

> him in a few places based on careful study, it is nothing personal. As

> a person, I respect him immensely. He is a great role model to

> aspiring scholars.

> >

> > Now, intelligent readers should note that Santhanam's "inability to

> explain this fully" does not mean that the verse is wrong or

> questionable. As Santhanam himself accepted, it was his "limitation"

> that he could not "explain this fully". Now, let me try to "explain

> this fully". (Note to Pradeep: I will NOT respond to any questions or

> comments from you.)

> >

> > If Jupiter is at 2 deg in Pisces (i.e. in 0:00-3:20), he is exalted

> is Cancer in navamsa. Why is it called Cancer? We know that Aries,

> Taurus etc are divisions of the "physical" zodiac and Cancer is

> physically the region between 90 deg and 120 deg. Why didn't sages

> come up with new names for the navamsa divisions, drekkana divisions

> etc? Why are all those divisions mapped back to the same 12 signs?

> When we say that Jupiter in the above example is in Cancer in navamsa,

> do we mean that he is between 90 deg and 120 deg? Otherwise, why is it

> called "Cancer" for God's sake?

> >

> > This is the crux of the issue. If one understands this clearly,

> there is no confusion and the above verse of Parasara makes perfect sense.

> >

> > Jupiter in the above example is in Pisces physically. So he is at 2

> deg in Pisces as far as Rasi chart or rasi space (i.e. physical space)

> is concerned. But navamsa is a different chart altogether. It is a

> different space altogether. It is not a physical space and is an

> abstract space (that is why only rasi chart shows the physical

> existence, while navamsa shows an abstract environment known as

> dharmik environment). A planet in 0:00-3:20 of Pisces in the phsycial

> space (rasi) is mapped in this abstract navamsa space to 0:00 to 30:00

> of Cancer. In other words, a planet in 330:00-333:20 of the zodiac in

> the physical space is mapped in this abstract navamsa space to

> 90:00-120:00 of the zodiac. So Jupiter at 2 deg in Pisces in the

> physical space (rasi) is at 18 deg in Cancer in the navamsa space.

> (Side note: In fact, this is the very foundation of the casting of

> navamsa-dwadasamsa chart. Navamsa-dwadasamsa is not based on dividing

> rasis into 108 parts and linearly mapping them. Navamsa is the

> intermediate step. It is based on casting navamsa, treating it as rasi

> and finding its dwadasamsa. The sign occupied in navamsa-dwadasamsa by

> a planet at 2 deg in Pisces in rasi is the same as the sign occupied

> in dwadasamsa by a planet at 18 deg in Cancer in rasi!)

> >

> > If you realize this, then the fact that "the sage himself referred

> to the longitudinal aspectual evaluations in an earlier chapter" is no

> longer a concern and does not become a limitation in "accepting this

> fully".

> >

> > Some may tell you that Cancer in navamsa is not the same as Cancer

> in rasi. Don't kid yourself. Otherwise, it wouldn't be called

> "Cancer". They correspond to the same 30 degrees in the zodiac, albeit

> seen from two different spaces. Cancer in rasi chart corresponds to

> the same 30 degrees in the physical space, while Cancer in navamsa

> chart corresponds to a various smaller regions when seen thru the

> physical space. But once you enter the navamsa space thru one of those

> 3:20 regions in the physical space and see things thru the navamsa

> space, you are in the same old Cancer, i.e. 90-120 deg. If 90-120 deg

> is the second house from 60-90 deg in the zodiac in one space, it is

> so in another space too. Period.

> >

> > If the planet is in 330:00-333:20 in the rasi chart, that is so in

> the physical rasi space. Once you are dealing with navamsa, don't

> think that it is still in 330:00-333:20. When viewed thru the navamsa

> space, it is NOT in that region. It is in 90:00-120:00 when viewed

> thru this space.

> >

> > Those who do not understand and appreciate this simple concept will

> tell you not to take houses in navamsa (and other divisions). But they

> will not be able to explain the verse I quoted above. Either they will

> have to accept their limitation in explaining it, like Sri Santhanam

> did (there is nothing wrong with it), or give some misinterpretation,

> like Santhanam did not. On the other hand, if you get this simple

> concept into your system, there are no issues. The choice is yours.

> >

> > There are many other references to houses in amsas by Parasara, but

> they are more ambiguous.

> >

> > Despite my strong (and quite justified, in my view) views on taking

> houses in navamsa and other divisional charts, I do respect those who

> think otherwise. I sincerely hope that they too can respect my views

> and agree to disagree. If they do not try to force me to accept their

> views or throw around objectionable adjectives to describe my views, I

> will not force them to accept their views.

> >

> > Understanding that houses in divisions are important is one thing

> and understanding how to use them and how to use houses in rasi chart

> and how to correlate the two is quite another thing. But that is not

> my focus for today.

> >

> > 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

> > Sri Jagannath Centre (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 .......

>

>

>

>

> ________________________________

>

>

> Visit your group "vedic astrology" on the web.

>

>

> vedic astrology

>

>

>

> vedic astrology

>

>

>

> ________________________________

>

[Guest guest]

Namaste Pandit ji,

 

> Hanging a> thesis based on one verse is a dangerous path without knowing the>

context of the shloka. I have GC Sharmas traslation and I am not sure

 

What context? There is no context. This is a specific raja yoga. The verse in

question is to be judged on its own.

 

You can check anybody's translation. The fact is that Santhanam did not believe

in aspects in divisional charts, but he had to accept that they were mentioned

in the verse.

 

I am a Sanskrit scholar with "Bhasha Kovida" and "Bhasha Visharada" degrees. I

see nothing ambiguous in the verse. The verse clearly refers to aspects, that

too graha drishti and not rasi drishti, in divisional charts. The verses from

Narada Samhita given by Swee Chan also refer to aspects in divisional charts

very specifically.

 

Now, coming to "hanging a thesis based on one verse", I have to make two points.

One, even a single verse in BPHS cannot be unduly dismissed. Two, the "thesis"

in fact does not hang on one verse.

 

Parasara defined moolatrikonas and exaltation regions as fractions of rasis (and

not necessarily entire rasis) and later talked about planets being in

moolatrikona and exaltation in divisional charts also. For example, Mercury is

not exalted in the entire sign of Virgo. He is exalted in a part of it, in

moolatrikona in another part of it and in own sign in the remaining part of

Virgo (that was unambiguously stated by Parasara). The same Parasara later

talked about checking the exalted placements of planets in navamsa and other

divisions! This clearly suggests that Virgo in navamsa can be divided into own

sign, exaltation and moolatrikona portions for Mercury just like Virgo in rasi

chart can be.

 

What I outlined is not my "thesis" based on a verse. It is my "understanding" of

the entire BPHS. It is not based on a single verse, but a uniform and coherent

understanding based on the entire BPHS.

 

If a planet in Cancer is in the 4th house from a planet in Aries, it is so in

divisions also. You don't expect Parasara to explicitly mention it. The very

fact that divisional positions are mapped back to the same 12 signs of the

physical zodiac says a lot. For example, navamsa positions could have been

mapped to 108 new entities with names instead of the same old 12 signs. Some

may choose to ignore this vital point, but I see a lot of obvious messages in

it. You can disagree with me, but cannot say that I have no basis. I do have a

basis.

 

I don't expect everybody to agree with me, but my understanding is very

consistent, coherent and logical.

 

Please note that the whole thread started because a young man claimed regarding

houses in divisional charts such as navamsa, "Sage has not advised us to use

divisionals as charts...Trying to understand those subtle topics using houses

can be treated only as a trial by inquisitive minds. It is a raw or first level

attempt."

 

I view the use of houses in divisionals as a coherent and consistent

understanding granted by the sage and well-established practice and one that

enabled me to make a lot of correct predictions. The vehement dismissal and

misleading of other people regarding my views is what got me into this thread.

 

If you and like-minded people give respect to my views and stop vehemently

dismissing them, we can co-exist peacefully.

 

> this shloka appears in that chapter when I briefly glanced at it.> Thats why I

asked for the title of the chapter where this shlok is> presented.If you know

the title I would appreciate if you had just> sent that instead of holier than

though preaching..

 

I trust you got what you wanted from Sanjay P.

 

> Question also remains what about some of the insatnces Mr. Vaijaydas>

mentioned that point to the references where it is stated that these> are

divisions and not separate charts ?

Which instances?? I found no such instances mentioned by him.

 

May Jupiter's light shine on us,

Narasimha

-------------------------------Free Jyotish

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

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

Sri Jagannath Centre (SJC) website:

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

 

> Namaste,> > Your sarcasm is uncalled for. Whether parashar unambiguously

mentioned> using divisions as separate charts is not a proven fact. Hanging a>

thesis based on one verse is a dangerous path without knowing the> context of

the shloka. I have GC Sharmas traslation and I am not sure> this shloka

appears in that chapter when I briefly glanced at it.> Thats why I asked for

the title of the chapter where this shlok is> presented.If you know the title I

would appreciate if you had just> sent that instead of holier than though

preaching.> > Your sarcasms won't get you anywhere in predicting things. You

may> like to hang on one thread to build an entire preaching brigade. To me>

the proof is in whther this actually works in practice and I do not> mean one

or two charts where events are known. One can advance any> thesis once the

event is known.> > As you so sarcastically mentioned that some may argue

whether the> shloka is authentic or not. I do not think noone can say for sure

what> is authentic and what is not as no one knows or can prove who this>

Parashar was or this document as it exists now has been the origianl> one or

has been adulatrated.> > Question also remains what about some of the insatnces

Mr. Vaijaydas> mentioned that point to the references where it is stated that

these> are divisions and not separate charts ?> > If you want to use them use

them. As narasimha has said noone is> forcing anyone to use them and conversely

I am saying who is> preventing you are anyone from using it.> > If you can

predict accurately in high percentage of cases, no one will> even question

whether you are using grahas in our solar system or some> other galaxy or the

ones mentioned in Star Trek. The rest of activity> is just pure academic

pedagogy of very little worth or consequence to> the public at large.

[Guest guest]

Pandit-ji

I do not know about slokas in different books. But here is my

thought on using D9 and D10.

 

You use what works for you and let others use what works for them.

At the end of the day, what is important is giving good predictions

and consistent ones. I think there is universal agreement here.

There are hundreds of instances where rasi 10th lord is in bad shape

and its position improves in navamsa and dasamsha. If one sees only

rasi, then we are bound to make some mistakes. Navamsa is a must (no

disagreement here). Dasamsha is another very important divisional

chart.

 

I looked at two charts in the past month. Both are very contrasting.

Briefly..

 

A major politicain of UK - His 10th lord is in 12th, severely

afflicted and yet he is doing great. Why ? The reason is in D9 and

D10. D10 is really strong with a gajakesari yoga in 4th house of

parliament/simhasan.

 

Another one I looked at is that of US Attorney General Gonzales -

His D10 is not spectacular, but D9 and rasi are very strong.

 

I am sure others, such as Narasimha, have numerous examples of their

own. Best is to use what works for you.

 

Just my 2 cents..

Sincerely

Manjunath Sharma

 

 

 

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

<pvr@c...> wrote:

> Namaste Pandit ji,

>

> > Hanging a

> > thesis based on one verse is a dangerous path without knowing the

> > context of the shloka. I have GC Sharmas traslation and I am

not sure

>

> What context? There is no context. This is a specific raja yoga.

The verse in question is to be judged on its own.

>

> You can check anybody's translation. The fact is that Santhanam

did not believe in aspects in divisional charts, but he had to

accept that they were mentioned in the verse.

>

> I am a Sanskrit scholar with "Bhasha Kovida" and "Bhasha

Visharada" degrees. I see nothing ambiguous in the verse. The verse

clearly refers to aspects, that too graha drishti and not rasi

drishti, in divisional charts. The verses from Narada Samhita given

by Swee Chan also refer to aspects in divisional charts very

specifically.

>

> Now, coming to "hanging a thesis based on one verse", I have to

make two points. One, even a single verse in BPHS cannot be unduly

dismissed. Two, the "thesis" in fact does not hang on one verse.

>

> Parasara defined moolatrikonas and exaltation regions as fractions

of rasis (and not necessarily entire rasis) and later talked about

planets being in moolatrikona and exaltation in divisional charts

also. For example, Mercury is not exalted in the entire sign of

Virgo. He is exalted in a part of it, in moolatrikona in another

part of it and in own sign in the remaining part of Virgo (that was

unambiguously stated by Parasara). The same Parasara later talked

about checking the exalted placements of planets in navamsa and

other divisions! This clearly suggests that Virgo in navamsa can be

divided into own sign, exaltation and moolatrikona portions for

Mercury just like Virgo in rasi chart can be.

>

> What I outlined is not my "thesis" based on a verse. It is

my "understanding" of the entire BPHS. It is not based on a single

verse, but a uniform and coherent understanding based on the entire

BPHS.

>

> If a planet in Cancer is in the 4th house from a planet in Aries,

it is so in divisions also. You don't expect Parasara to explicitly

mention it. The very fact that divisional positions are mapped back

to the same 12 signs of the physical zodiac says a lot. For example,

navamsa positions could have been mapped to 108 new entities with

names instead of the same old 12 signs. Some may choose to ignore

this vital point, but I see a lot of obvious messages in it. You can

disagree with me, but cannot say that I have no basis. I do have a

basis.

>

> I don't expect everybody to agree with me, but my understanding is

very consistent, coherent and logical.

>

> Please note that the whole thread started because a young man

claimed regarding houses in divisional charts such as navamsa, "Sage

has not advised us to use divisionals as charts...Trying to

understand those subtle topics using houses can be treated only as a

trial by inquisitive minds. It is a raw or first level attempt."

>

> I view the use of houses in divisionals as a coherent and

consistent understanding granted by the sage and well-established

practice and one that enabled me to make a lot of correct

predictions. The vehement dismissal and misleading of other people

regarding my views is what got me into this thread.

>

> If you and like-minded people give respect to my views and stop

vehemently dismissing them, we can co-exist peacefully.

>

> > this shloka appears in that chapter when I briefly glanced at it.

> > Thats why I asked for the title of the chapter where this shlok

is

> > presented.If you know the title I would appreciate if you had

just

> > sent that instead of holier than though preaching..

>

> I trust you got what you wanted from Sanjay P.

>

> > Question also remains what about some of the insatnces Mr.

Vaijaydas

> > mentioned that point to the references where it is stated that

these

> > are divisions and not separate charts ?

>

> Which instances?? I found no such instances mentioned by him.

>

> 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

> Sri Jagannath Centre (SJC) website: http://www.SriJagannath.org

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

>

> > Namaste,

> >

> > Your sarcasm is uncalled for. Whether parashar unambiguously

mentioned

> > using divisions as separate charts is not a proven fact. Hanging

a

> > thesis based on one verse is a dangerous path without knowing the

> > context of the shloka. I have GC Sharmas traslation and I am

not sure

> > this shloka appears in that chapter when I briefly glanced at it.

> > Thats why I asked for the title of the chapter where this shlok

is

> > presented.If you know the title I would appreciate if you had

just

> > sent that instead of holier than though preaching.

> >

> > Your sarcasms won't get you anywhere in predicting things. You

may

> > like to hang on one thread to build an entire preaching brigade.

To me

> > the proof is in whther this actually works in practice and I do

not

> > mean one or two charts where events are known. One can advance

any

> > thesis once the event is known.

> >

> > As you so sarcastically mentioned that some may argue whether the

> > shloka is authentic or not. I do not think noone can say for

sure what

> > is authentic and what is not as no one knows or can prove who

this

> > Parashar was or this document as it exists now has been the

origianl

> > one or has been adulatrated.

> >

> > Question also remains what about some of the insatnces Mr.

Vaijaydas

> > mentioned that point to the references where it is stated that

these

> > are divisions and not separate charts ?

> >

> > If you want to use them use them. As narasimha has said noone is

> > forcing anyone to use them and conversely I am saying who is

> > preventing you are anyone from using it.

> >

> > If you can predict accurately in high percentage of cases, no

one will

> > even question whether you are using grahas in our solar system

or some

> > other galaxy or the ones mentioned in Star Trek. The rest of

activity

> > is just pure academic pedagogy of very little worth or

consequence to

> > the public at large.

[Guest guest]

Om krishna guru:

 

Namaste panditji:

 

 

> I have GC Sharmas traslation and I am not sure

> this shloka appears in that chapter when I briefly glanced at it.

> Thats why I asked for the title of the chapter where this shlok is

> presented.

 

The shlokas given by Narashimha as being in chapter 39 of santhanam

translation are in chapter 41 titled "RAJA YOGAS" in GC SHARMA

translation. the shloka numbers are the same 13 and 14.

I am mentioning from the 1999 reprint edition, page 548.

 

There is a verse in chapter of upapada(chapter 32 GCS) shloka 30, pg437

G C Sharma translation does not have the english meaning, it also has

some references to yogas in nvamsha and trishamsha kundali

 

 

 

Ishwar

[Guest guest]

Namaste Manju,

 

In the chart you described what is the picture from chandra lagna ?

Chandra as a reference point is very important. KN Rao has also

mentioned this as being a life force of the kundali. Parashar says to

look from lagna or chandra whichever is stronger.

 

Secondly, in the examples you have cited, which kundali you will give

preference to ? In one case you have bad main kundali and good

dashamsha. In the other bad dashamsha but good rashi and navansha. Is

it 2 out of 3 ? 1 out of 3 ? Do you see the dilemma ? Are we using

even the principles being advocated consistently ? I had mentioned a

few days back that many say what is not promised by rashi won't be

given by division/divisional chart. Many who use divisions as charts

have also stated that. If that is the case why go to division to see

the promise if rashi is weak ? Is it just to justify what is already

known ? Have we dug deep into rashi kundali itself to understand the

workings of it ?

 

....

 

On 7/18/05, M Sharma <chitra2pada wrote:

> Pandit-ji

> I do not know about slokas in different books. But here is my

> thought on using D9 and D10.

>

> You use what works for you and let others use what works for them.

> At the end of the day, what is important is giving good predictions

> and consistent ones. I think there is universal agreement here.

> There are hundreds of instances where rasi 10th lord is in bad shape

> and its position improves in navamsa and dasamsha. If one sees only

> rasi, then we are bound to make some mistakes. Navamsa is a must (no

> disagreement here). Dasamsha is another very important divisional

> chart.

>

> I looked at two charts in the past month. Both are very contrasting.

> Briefly..

>

> A major politicain of UK - His 10th lord is in 12th, severely

> afflicted and yet he is doing great. Why ? The reason is in D9 and

> D10. D10 is really strong with a gajakesari yoga in 4th house of

> parliament/simhasan.

>

> Another one I looked at is that of US Attorney General Gonzales -

> His D10 is not spectacular, but D9 and rasi are very strong.

>

> I am sure others, such as Narasimha, have numerous examples of their

> own. Best is to use what works for you.

>

> Just my 2 cents..

> Sincerely

> Manjunath Sharma

>

>

>

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

> <pvr@c...> wrote:

> > Namaste Pandit ji,

> >

> > > Hanging a

> > > thesis based on one verse is a dangerous path without knowing the

> > > context of the shloka. I have GC Sharmas traslation and I am

> not sure

> >

> > What context? There is no context. This is a specific raja yoga.

> The verse in question is to be judged on its own.

> >

> > You can check anybody's translation. The fact is that Santhanam

> did not believe in aspects in divisional charts, but he had to

> accept that they were mentioned in the verse.

> >

> > I am a Sanskrit scholar with "Bhasha Kovida" and "Bhasha

> Visharada" degrees. I see nothing ambiguous in the verse. The verse

> clearly refers to aspects, that too graha drishti and not rasi

> drishti, in divisional charts. The verses from Narada Samhita given

> by Swee Chan also refer to aspects in divisional charts very

> specifically.

> >

> > Now, coming to "hanging a thesis based on one verse", I have to

> make two points. One, even a single verse in BPHS cannot be unduly

> dismissed. Two, the "thesis" in fact does not hang on one verse.

> >

> > Parasara defined moolatrikonas and exaltation regions as fractions

> of rasis (and not necessarily entire rasis) and later talked about

> planets being in moolatrikona and exaltation in divisional charts

> also. For example, Mercury is not exalted in the entire sign of

> Virgo. He is exalted in a part of it, in moolatrikona in another

> part of it and in own sign in the remaining part of Virgo (that was

> unambiguously stated by Parasara). The same Parasara later talked

> about checking the exalted placements of planets in navamsa and

> other divisions! This clearly suggests that Virgo in navamsa can be

> divided into own sign, exaltation and moolatrikona portions for

> Mercury just like Virgo in rasi chart can be.

> >

> > What I outlined is not my "thesis" based on a verse. It is

> my "understanding" of the entire BPHS. It is not based on a single

> verse, but a uniform and coherent understanding based on the entire

> BPHS.

> >

> > If a planet in Cancer is in the 4th house from a planet in Aries,

> it is so in divisions also. You don't expect Parasara to explicitly

> mention it. The very fact that divisional positions are mapped back

> to the same 12 signs of the physical zodiac says a lot. For example,

> navamsa positions could have been mapped to 108 new entities with

> names instead of the same old 12 signs. Some may choose to ignore

> this vital point, but I see a lot of obvious messages in it. You can

> disagree with me, but cannot say that I have no basis. I do have a

> basis.

> >

> > I don't expect everybody to agree with me, but my understanding is

> very consistent, coherent and logical.

> >

> > Please note that the whole thread started because a young man

> claimed regarding houses in divisional charts such as navamsa, "Sage

> has not advised us to use divisionals as charts...Trying to

> understand those subtle topics using houses can be treated only as a

> trial by inquisitive minds. It is a raw or first level attempt."

> >

> > I view the use of houses in divisionals as a coherent and

> consistent understanding granted by the sage and well-established

> practice and one that enabled me to make a lot of correct

> predictions. The vehement dismissal and misleading of other people

> regarding my views is what got me into this thread.

> >

> > If you and like-minded people give respect to my views and stop

> vehemently dismissing them, we can co-exist peacefully.

> >

> > > this shloka appears in that chapter when I briefly glanced at it.

> > > Thats why I asked for the title of the chapter where this shlok

> is

> > > presented.If you know the title I would appreciate if you had

> just

> > > sent that instead of holier than though preaching..

> >

> > I trust you got what you wanted from Sanjay P.

> >

> > > Question also remains what about some of the insatnces Mr.

> Vaijaydas

> > > mentioned that point to the references where it is stated that

> these

> > > are divisions and not separate charts ?

> >

> > Which instances?? I found no such instances mentioned by him.

> >

> > 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

> > Sri Jagannath Centre (SJC) website: http://www.SriJagannath.org

> >

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

> >

> > > Namaste,

> > >

> > > Your sarcasm is uncalled for. Whether parashar unambiguously

> mentioned

> > > using divisions as separate charts is not a proven fact. Hanging

> a

> > > thesis based on one verse is a dangerous path without knowing the

> > > context of the shloka. I have GC Sharmas traslation and I am

> not sure

> > > this shloka appears in that chapter when I briefly glanced at it.

> > > Thats why I asked for the title of the chapter where this shlok

> is

> > > presented.If you know the title I would appreciate if you had

> just

> > > sent that instead of holier than though preaching.

> > >

> > > Your sarcasms won't get you anywhere in predicting things. You

> may

> > > like to hang on one thread to build an entire preaching brigade.

> To me

> > > the proof is in whther this actually works in practice and I do

> not

> > > mean one or two charts where events are known. One can advance

> any

> > > thesis once the event is known.

> > >

> > > As you so sarcastically mentioned that some may argue whether the

> > > shloka is authentic or not. I do not think noone can say for

> sure what

> > > is authentic and what is not as no one knows or can prove who

> this

> > > Parashar was or this document as it exists now has been the

> origianl

> > > one or has been adulatrated.

> > >

> > > Question also remains what about some of the insatnces Mr.

> Vaijaydas

> > > mentioned that point to the references where it is stated that

> these

> > > are divisions and not separate charts ?

> > >

> > > If you want to use them use them. As narasimha has said noone is

> > > forcing anyone to use them and conversely I am saying who is

> > > preventing you are anyone from using it.

> > >

> > > If you can predict accurately in high percentage of cases, no

> one will

> > > even question whether you are using grahas in our solar system

> or some

> > > other galaxy or the ones mentioned in Star Trek. The rest of

> activity

> > > is just pure academic pedagogy of very little worth or

> consequence to

> > > the public at large.

>

 

>

> Group info:

> vedic astrology/info.html

>

> To UNSUBSCRIBE: Blank mail to

> vedic astrology-

>

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

>

>

>

>

>

> ________________________________

>

>

> Visit your group "vedic astrology" on the web.

>

>

> vedic astrology

>

>

> ________________________________

>