General conclusive views on Vargas and Thanks

[Guest guest]

Dear Respected members

 

I was thinking not to write anymore on this topic.Before i go let me

write 2 sentences.

 

I am interested in bringing down my attention towards the light of

sun, which is within each of us.

In that process we are trying to understand that mars ,mercury ,saturn

etc are just a part of the same ray,similar to seven colours being a

part of light.In this process i have no time to imagine thousands of

zodiacs.Time and space are infinitely divisile,and one can imagine as

many zodiacs as they want.

 

We have to understand that different planes of understanding is part

of the same entity though at different depths.Looking fine is

important than looking at many.Everything is within us and non dual.It

is an interplay of seven planets plus Rahu and Ketu within the same

zodiac that explains everything.Bhavat bhavam is an interplay of

different roles played by the same entity,based on change in reference.

Amshas are different environments to which a planet is sujected to

,again like different planes of our understanding.Why do we count 64

navamshas and 22 drekkanas in the same zodiac or Rashi chakra and not

some houses in drekkana or navamsha in some ''imaginary'' zodiac ,

may be sincerely looked upon by eminent scholars.Of course i am a

waste of time.

 

Sun and Moon rules the whole zodiac.Their unison cretaes a bhava.One

half of this is a Hora,Shiva and Shakthi.When we study one rashi -it

becomes a part of '' physical'' zodiac.When we study a half of it

,immediately it goes to an '' imaginary'' zodiac!!!!.

We are failing to see this simple fact -If a planet is at 16 degrees

in Aries,it falls in the Kshethra of Mars and Hora of Sun.

Reason for Hora - Each half of any rashi from the same zodiac is given

a sex ,based on odd or even.Sun and Moon will rule them depending on

male or female.Do we really need to imagine an imaginary zodiac to

understand this simple fact.Aren't they part of the same zodiac and

one half of the same rashi.

Similar to planets having directional strength,it is very important to

have sense of direction for our efforts.

 

 

Regarding the shloka, Parashara had clearly given in the prior

chapters,the rules for aspect and never expected anyone to

misunderstand.Thus when he says - a single planet joining or aspecting

lagnas shadvargas - he expected us to have the common sense to know

where is aspect possible.He just mentioned joining and aspecting together.

 

When we discuss kalachakra dasha we say parashara has not mentioned

about amsha signs but only about their lords.When we discuss with

pradeep Cancer ,Leo etc are pretty clear.

 

I have gained a lot from many of you.I am really thankful.

I do not beleive i am going to gain anything more on this topic

through discussions of the ongoing kind ,due to obvious reasons.

I have only one request -Pls dont blindly beleive any theory - not

even my views.

 

 

Thanks again

Pradeep

[Guest guest]

Pls read Hora of Moon instead of sun.

vedic astrology, "vijayadas_pradeep"

<vijayadas_pradeep> wrote:

> Dear Respected members

>

> I was thinking not to write anymore on this topic.Before i go let me

> write 2 sentences.

>

> I am interested in bringing down my attention towards the light of

> sun, which is within each of us.

> In that process we are trying to understand that mars ,mercury ,saturn

> etc are just a part of the same ray,similar to seven colours being a

> part of light.In this process i have no time to imagine thousands of

> zodiacs.Time and space are infinitely divisile,and one can imagine as

> many zodiacs as they want.

>

> We have to understand that different planes of understanding is part

> of the same entity though at different depths.Looking fine is

> important than looking at many.Everything is within us and non dual.It

> is an interplay of seven planets plus Rahu and Ketu within the same

> zodiac that explains everything.Bhavat bhavam is an interplay of

> different roles played by the same entity,based on change in reference.

> Amshas are different environments to which a planet is sujected to

> ,again like different planes of our understanding.Why do we count 64

> navamshas and 22 drekkanas in the same zodiac or Rashi chakra and not

> some houses in drekkana or navamsha in some ''imaginary'' zodiac ,

> may be sincerely looked upon by eminent scholars.Of course i am a

> waste of time.

>

> Sun and Moon rules the whole zodiac.Their unison cretaes a bhava.One

> half of this is a Hora,Shiva and Shakthi.When we study one rashi -it

> becomes a part of '' physical'' zodiac.When we study a half of it

> ,immediately it goes to an '' imaginary'' zodiac!!!!.

> We are failing to see this simple fact -If a planet is at 16 degrees

> in Aries,it falls in the Kshethra of Mars and Hora of Sun.

> Reason for Hora - Each half of any rashi from the same zodiac is given

> a sex ,based on odd or even.Sun and Moon will rule them depending on

> male or female.Do we really need to imagine an imaginary zodiac to

> understand this simple fact.Aren't they part of the same zodiac and

> one half of the same rashi.

> Similar to planets having directional strength,it is very important to

> have sense of direction for our efforts.

>

>

> Regarding the shloka, Parashara had clearly given in the prior

> chapters,the rules for aspect and never expected anyone to

> misunderstand.Thus when he says - a single planet joining or aspecting

> lagnas shadvargas - he expected us to have the common sense to know

> where is aspect possible.He just mentioned joining and aspecting

together.

>

> When we discuss kalachakra dasha we say parashara has not mentioned

> about amsha signs but only about their lords.When we discuss with

> pradeep Cancer ,Leo etc are pretty clear.

>

> I have gained a lot from many of you.I am really thankful.

> I do not beleive i am going to gain anything more on this topic

> through discussions of the ongoing kind ,due to obvious reasons.

> I have only one request -Pls dont blindly beleive any theory - not

> even my views.

>

>

> Thanks again

> Pradeep