Rasi and div charts (Pradeep) Shri Narasimha - 4

[Guest guest]

Now we will discuss the rajayoga

 

4)Raja Yoga Shloka

If the shadvargas of Lagna is having or is aspected by a single

planet,Rajayoga results.Based on the quality of aspect,degree of

Rajayoga varies.Shadvargas of Lagna can be a single sign or

different.These signs represent the varying influences of our Natal

lagna.Classical astrologers used the term -Amshaka Rashi -which

means,Lagna is having Amshaka(navamsha) in that particular sign.

Now why do a single planet aspecting shadvargas of Lagna ,grant

Rajayoga.

 

Lagna represent us.Shadvargas of Lagna represent the signs which are

being infleunced by our lagna for various matters.These signs are

functionally responsible for such respective matters.Now if a single

planet has full aspect on all such signs - We are influenced by a

similar force for various matters.In simple terms a good powerful

friend(when the planet concerned is so) is helping us in various

matters(Studies/Sports/Music/Administartion/Family).Can we enjoy

Rajayoga?

 

Narasimha ji we have seen hundreds of examples from Kalyan Varma on

how to use a varga.Still you are sticking on to technical points.I

am only happy to attempt any of your further questions.

 

Thanks

Pradeep

 

 

 

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

<pvr@c...> wrote:

>

> Dear Pradeep,

>

> I seem to detect an inconsistency in your stand.

>

> If Jupiter and Mars are at 2 deg and 22 deg in Aries

(respectively), I take them to be in Ar and Li in navamsa chart and

I take them to aspect each other.

>

> You seem to have a problem with it. You do not recognize the fact

that they are in Ar and Li (in navamsa). You still think in terms of

the physical placement (rasi chart). You say that they are still at

2 deg and 22 deg in Aries and hence 20 deg apart. So you questioned

how two planets apart by 20 deg can aspect each other.

>

> Of course, in my view, they are not 20 deg apart. They are 20 deg

apart in the physical space (rasi) and 180 deg apart in navamsa. But

let us leave that aside and accept your view for a moment.

>

> Now, the interesting thing is that you and Finn said that the

correct way to judge a division is to project its lagna onto the

rasi chart and judge houses from it and aspects on it in rasi chart,

using planets of rasi chart. I hope I am not misrepresenting you.

>

> Now, this brings into question your inconsistency. Let me

elaborate.

>

> Suppose lagna is at 22 deg in Aries and Jupiter is at 18 deg

Gemini. Lagna in navamsa is in Libra. You "project" it onto rasi

chart and say that "navamsa lagna" is in Libra in rasi chart. You

say that Jupiter at 18 deg in Gemini aspects navamsa lagna. (I hope

I am not misrepresenting you.)

>

> However, lagna is at 22 deg in Aries physically (using the same

argument you used earlier/above) and Jupiter is at 56 deg from it.

How can he aspect it?

>

> Thus, when you are projecting navamsa lagna from Li in navamsa to

Li in rasi, you are ignoring the fact that lagna is not physically

in Li and treating as Li. Then why can't I project my Mars and

Jupiter at 2 and 22 deg in Aries in the above example from Ar and Li

in navamsa to Ar and Li in rasi chart and say that they aspect each

other? I'll call them "navamsa Mars" and "navamsa Jupiter" and

project them onto Ar and Li of rasi chart (just as you

projected "navamsa lagna" onto Li of rasi chart in the latter

example) and say that they aspect each other.

>

> * * *

>

> > Is this transformed space your personal view or based on any

> > classical reference.

>

> To answer your question directly, it is not a view but a deduction.

>

> Libra covers 180 deg-210 deg of the zodiac. A planet in the 7th

navamsa of Aries was mapped to Libra by Parasara. In other words, a

planet between 20 deg and 23 deg 20 min of the zodiac is mapped to

180 deg-210 of the zodiac. The way to understand it is to look at as

a transformation. A tranformation can map the same space onto

itself. We can take a space X and find a map f that maps X onto X.

Navamsa transformation and dasamsa transformation are essentially

such maps of zodiac onto the same zodiac.

>

> 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

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

>

> > > Dear Pradeep,

> > >

> > > I answered this query of yours umpteen times.

> > >

> > > Navamsa, dasamsa etc are transformed spaces. Two planets may

be 20

> > > deg apart in the same sign in the physical space, but 180 deg

> > apart

> > > in the transformed navamsa space.

> >

> > Dear Narasimha ji

> >

> > Is this transformed space your personal view or based on any

> > classical reference.Shri Sanjay Rath once replied ''there are

two

> > zodiacs - one in order and other not'' .Thus i would like to

know

> > your view as well as SJC view ,so that people will not get

confused.

> >

> > I know only about one zodiac,12 signs and divisions of

individual

> > signs as advised by sage and there is no confusion at all.

> >

> > As per your understanding is there a ''transformed space'' for

> > nakshathra padas or are they physically present within a

rashi!!!.

> > (It equals one navamsha).

> > Vargas show the relationship one planet is having with different

> > signs(lords) based on ''arcs'' within a rashi.Kalyan Varma has

given

> > clear examples regarding physique for each navamsha within a

rashi.

> >

> > Thanks

> > Pradeep

>

[Guest guest]

Dear Chandra Sekhar ji,

You said it right! Why it is so? That is why it is necessary to have

a look back at the basics.

In astrology any one with little effort could clearly visualize that,

basically 4 items are important as they serve as the significators of

many things. They are 1-Rasi, 2-Bhava, 3-Planet. To draw some real

predictions out of the numerous things for which these three are

significators 7 combinations as I have described in my previous mail

is used. The same principle is used to deal with Vargas as well. All

other branches are just secondary to this fundamental idea. This way

can't you see how simple it is to get a complete picture of astrology

?! Now we should start learning each of these branches in detail. I

think it is the right approach as the Rishi horas supports this view.

Now coming to BPHS, Vedic/Non-vedic controversy or the like, it is

more related to history than to astrology. Only thing the real

astrologers should worry about is - how to predict (with Sign-House-

Plant etc and the whole bunch of data we have) correctly? Mostly they

would be worried about one more thing as well in the current

situation, that is - whether astrology is correct or not? In

controversies like the one Mohan ji initiates (BPHS, Vedic/Non-vedic

controversy etc) we should participate with enthusiasm as it is not

directly linked to astrology (if astrology is right).

Love,

Sreenadh

 

 

Message: 24

Fri, 28 Oct 2005 04:09:25 -0700 (PDT)

Chandra Sekhar <chandra_sekhar1970

Re: Re: Rasi and div charts (Pradeep) Shri Narasimha - 4

 

Dear friends,

 

It is confusion everywhere. Some Jyotsi says there was no Parasara

Hora, some claims Rasi and some says only Varga. How come the experts

speak

so incoherently? All qualified people, very intelligent people who

have

shown their excellence in modern scientific sphere and talking like

blind men who have gone to see the elephant. What can be more funny?

What is fundamental in astrology? Planetary positions or their

derivatives? What is more important - actual date of birth or annual

birth day?

In science, a spurious text book will be identified and weeded out

immediately. Whatever a text book may contradict, two teachers of

Physics

won't contradict the Newton's laws. But here the qualified astrologers

are in conflict over fundamental things.

Shall astrology come out of all these uncertainties? Are these

uncertainties a product of astrology itself or of the minds of

astrologers?

 

chandra sekhar

[Guest guest]

Sir

 

Astrology will not be proved by participating in theoretical debates.

Participate in few puzzles and quizzes and show us your talent

instead of talking about theories

 

Best wishes

partha

 

 

vedic astrology, "Sreenadh" <sreelid>

wrote:

>

> Dear Chandra Sekhar ji,

> You said it right! Why it is so? That is why it is necessary to

have

> a look back at the basics.

> In astrology any one with little effort could clearly visualize

that,

> basically 4 items are important as they serve as the significators

of

> many things. They are 1-Rasi, 2-Bhava, 3-Planet. To draw some real

> predictions out of the numerous things for which these three are

> significators 7 combinations as I have described in my previous

mail

> is used. The same principle is used to deal with Vargas as well.

All

> other branches are just secondary to this fundamental idea. This

way

> can't you see how simple it is to get a complete picture of

astrology

> ?! Now we should start learning each of these branches in detail. I

> think it is the right approach as the Rishi horas supports this

view.

> Now coming to BPHS, Vedic/Non-vedic controversy or the like, it is

> more related to history than to astrology. Only thing the real

> astrologers should worry about is - how to predict (with Sign-House-

> Plant etc and the whole bunch of data we have) correctly? Mostly

they

> would be worried about one more thing as well in the current

> situation, that is - whether astrology is correct or not? In

> controversies like the one Mohan ji initiates (BPHS, Vedic/Non-

vedic

> controversy etc) we should participate with enthusiasm as it is not

> directly linked to astrology (if astrology is right).

> Love,

> Sreenadh

>

>

> Message: 24

> Fri, 28 Oct 2005 04:09:25 -0700 (PDT)

> Chandra Sekhar <chandra_sekhar1970>

> Re: Re: Rasi and div charts (Pradeep) Shri Narasimha - 4

>

> Dear friends,

>

> It is confusion everywhere. Some Jyotsi says there was no Parasara

> Hora, some claims Rasi and some says only Varga. How come the

experts

> speak

> so incoherently? All qualified people, very intelligent people who

> have

> shown their excellence in modern scientific sphere and talking like

> blind men who have gone to see the elephant. What can be more

funny?

> What is fundamental in astrology? Planetary positions or their

> derivatives? What is more important - actual date of birth or

annual

> birth day?

> In science, a spurious text book will be identified and weeded out

> immediately. Whatever a text book may contradict, two teachers of

> Physics

> won't contradict the Newton's laws. But here the qualified

astrologers

> are in conflict over fundamental things.

> Shall astrology come out of all these uncertainties? Are these

> uncertainties a product of astrology itself or of the minds of

> astrologers?

>

> chandra sekhar

>

[Guest guest]

Dear Partha sarathy ji,

Can we write with out knowing how to use a pen? Can we treat patients

with out having the fundamental idea about medicines? Without having

the clear idea about the theoretical (which later transforms itself

into application) foundation of Astrology, how we are going to solve

"puzzles and quizzes" you mentioned?

Now coming to this theoretical discussion, many are not at all

confused about the issue, "How to predict with Natal chart?". That is

why many predictions come true!!. Now coming to the other part "How to

predict with Vargas/Vargacharts/D-Charts?" there is confusion

everywhere! And the curious thing is that many are using methods (D-

Charts etc), which is not at all supported/sanctioned by the classics

!!!

If one cannot even see methods of primary calculation, how can he

think about solving all those calculus and trigonometric puzzles?

I am not saying that we should not use new methods. What I am trying

to say is that we should try to understand the original methods used

by the Rishis/Acharyas in interpreting horoscopes. Then only we could

say that we are the true seekers of astrological knowledge. With out

correctly constructing/understanding the basement, how can we create

big buildings?

Love,

Sreenadh

 

Message: 4

Sat, 29 Oct 2005 11:24:11 -0000

"V.Partha sarathy" <partvinu

Re: Rasi and div charts (Pradeep) Shri Narasimha - 4

 

Sir

 

Astrology will not be proved by participating in theoretical debates.

Participate in few puzzles and quizzes and show us your talent

instead of talking about theories

 

Best wishes

partha

[Guest guest]

Dear Sreenadh ji

 

I was never denying that basics and foundations are not important. I

myself stick to basics when trying to make predictions. But the point

here was about "interpretation" of classics.

 

Interpretation if I may say is "interpretation" only!

Assuming authority over what rishis said is nothing short of

blasphemy, simply because only a maharishi can understand what

maharishi said. Here atleast people who are voicing concerns over the

tampering of classics or is it rather tampering with "interpretation"

of classics?

Mind you both are absolutely different things. People are mostly

relying on commentaries made by some eminent sanskrit scholars.

 

Rishis and scholars are two different class of people

Rishis come from a spiritual perspective, whatever they say is from a

totally different context than whatever a scholar says. So relying on

some wishy washy "interpretation" to bring a point home is nothing

short of foolhardiness.

 

All i am saying is that instead of arguing endlessly on what rishis

said, let us be open and try to experiment with different "ideas" of

what rishis said. I am not even talking about post morterm. I am

talking about live charts. Let us use our analytical tools and come

to a conclusion on these blind charts.

Let us not be hasty in saying that if one got it wrong for few cases

is wrong with his understanding. The same could apply to both

parties. After predicting for about 10000 blind charts. Say both of

the parties gets it right for atleast 50% cases, then we can conclude

that both are right in the methods used. No method is a better

method. There are two ways of seeing the same thing. Are you game for

such an experiment. are you ready for such an honest research?

 

Best wishes

partha

 

vedic astrology, "Sreenadh" <sreelid>

wrote:

>

> Dear Partha sarathy ji,

> Can we write with out knowing how to use a pen? Can we treat

patients

> with out having the fundamental idea about medicines? Without

having

> the clear idea about the theoretical (which later transforms itself

> into application) foundation of Astrology, how we are going to

solve

> "puzzles and quizzes" you mentioned?

> Now coming to this theoretical discussion, many are not at all

> confused about the issue, "How to predict with Natal chart?". That

is

> why many predictions come true!!. Now coming to the other part "How

to

> predict with Vargas/Vargacharts/D-Charts?" there is confusion

> everywhere! And the curious thing is that many are using methods (D-

> Charts etc), which is not at all supported/sanctioned by the

classics

> !!!

> If one cannot even see methods of primary calculation, how can he

> think about solving all those calculus and trigonometric puzzles?

> I am not saying that we should not use new methods. What I am

trying

> to say is that we should try to understand the original methods

used

> by the Rishis/Acharyas in interpreting horoscopes. Then only we

could

> say that we are the true seekers of astrological knowledge. With

out

> correctly constructing/understanding the basement, how can we

create

> big buildings?

> Love,

> Sreenadh

>

> Message: 4

> Sat, 29 Oct 2005 11:24:11 -0000

> "V.Partha sarathy" <partvinu@g...>

> Re: Rasi and div charts (Pradeep) Shri Narasimha - 4

>

> Sir

>

> Astrology will not be proved by participating in theoretical

debates.

> Participate in few puzzles and quizzes and show us your talent

> instead of talking about theories

>

> Best wishes

> partha

>

[Guest guest]

Dear members

 

I have been following this thread with great interest and recall the

use of D charts in Nadi (Dev Keralam). I strongly feel that Narasimha

is very correct and has hit the nail at right point.

 

In Nadi, while reading Navamsa, it is mentioned at many places that,

when saturn transits the natal position in navamsa chart, the karkatva

of that planet in question suffers and when guru transits such natal

planet in navamsa chart, he results are positive. It indicates, that

those D charts are read in isolation.

 

regards / Prafulla

[Guest guest]

Dear Partha,

In your words:

> I was never denying that basics and foundations are not important. I

> myself stick to basics when trying to make predictions. But the

> point here was about "interpretation" of classics.

>

> Interpretation if I may say is "interpretation" only!

> Assuming authority over what rishis said is nothing short of

> blasphemy, simply because only a maharishi can understand what

> maharishi said.

This is not correct. Maharshi's have enunciated fundamentals and to

anyone who is sincerely pursuing the study of Jyotisha without

partisan attitudes and `spartha' the truth of the verses will be

apparent. Those who create new interpretations for the so-called

research without caring for the fundamentals stand to miss the right

meaning and that is what is happening in your case. There are accepted

canons for interpretations of a sastra treatise and it has to be

followed while deriving the meaning of a verse. By no amount of logic

you can derive excuses for making an interpretation that declared

Vargas as independent charts of the significations. Primary

determinants of a House are the Lord and planets occupying and

aspecting it and then the Varga comes into picture and there the

influence over Lagna is of paramount importance. Ignoring Varga_Lagna,

you cannot jump to 5th house of Varga to see children and 10th house

of Dasamsa to see Karma.

Further, you cannot derive Arudhas anywhere you like and make the

whole interpretation a funny exercise.

> Here atleast people who are voicing concerns over the

> tampering of classics or is it rather tampering with

> "interpretation" of classics?

> Mind you both are absolutely different things. People are mostly

> relying on commentaries made by some eminent sanskrit scholars.

Commentaries are available for reputed works of ancient tradition and

they represent the traditional wisodom. With BPH interpretation is

creating controversy, as it has no traditional commentary – a proof

that the copies in circulations are all of a spurious product.

> Rishis and scholars are two different class of people

> Rishis come from a spiritual perspective, whatever they say

> is from a totally different context than whatever a scholar says.

> So relying on some wishy washy "interpretation" to bring a point

> home is nothing short of foolhardiness.

this is what you must understand.

> All i am saying is that instead of arguing endlessly on what rishis

> said, let us be open and try to experiment with different "ideas" of

> what rishis said.

no need of different ideas – the traditional wisdom that does not

contradict fundamentals and that is correct in the eye of proper

reasoning only need to be studied and researched. Despite the

discussions that have taken place, if your Guru and wisdom tell you to

follow the "independent Vargas and ATPs and Arudhas in all" then you

follow that.

> I am not even talking about post morterm. I am

> talking about live charts. Let us use our analytical tools and come

> to a conclusion on these blind charts.

> Let us not be hasty in saying that if one got it wrong for few cases

> is wrong with his understanding. The same could apply to both

> parties. After predicting for about 10000 blind charts. Say both of

> the parties gets it right for atleast 50% cases, then we can

> conclude that both are right in the methods used.

> No method is a better method. There are two ways of seeing

> the same thing. Are you game for

> such an experiment. are you ready for such an honest research?

Such foolhardy researches are not required for those who are able to

understand the traditional wisdom with the grace of Guru and the

Grahas. Those who are in wrong track shall always be in wrong track

unless God's grace decides to put them in the right path. You can

spell out the axioms of your research covering "independent" Vargas,

Vargarudhas, independent longitudes and Dasas, Argalas, Badhakas,

Yogas, aspects, Nakshatra lordships, Janma_Sampath classification,

Deities of all stars, rasis and grahas… and wait to hear a laugh from

the group and may be also cries from the Maharshis who created the

Jyotisha.

Dear Partha please pardon some of the words sounds rude.

Love,

Sreenadh

 

vedic astrology, "V.Partha sarathy"

<partvinu@g...> wrote:

>

> Dear Sreenadh ji

>

> I was never denying that basics and foundations are not important. I

> myself stick to basics when trying to make predictions. But the

> point here was about "interpretation" of classics.

>

> Interpretation if I may say is "interpretation" only!

> Assuming authority over what rishis said is nothing short of

> blasphemy, simply because only a maharishi can understand what

> maharishi said.

> Here atleast people who are voicing concerns over the

> tampering of classics or is it rather tampering with

> "interpretation" of classics?

> Mind you both are absolutely different things. People are mostly

> relying on commentaries made by some eminent sanskrit scholars.

>

> Rishis and scholars are two different class of people

> Rishis come from a spiritual perspective, whatever they say is from

a

> totally different context than whatever a scholar says. So relying

on

> some wishy washy "interpretation" to bring a point home is nothing

> short of foolhardiness.

>

> All i am saying is that instead of arguing endlessly on what rishis

> said, let us be open and try to experiment with different "ideas" of

> what rishis said.

> I am not even talking about post morterm. I am

> talking about live charts. Let us use our analytical tools and come

> to a conclusion on these blind charts.

> Let us not be hasty in saying that if one got it wrong for few cases

> is wrong with his understanding. The same could apply to both

> parties. After predicting for about 10000 blind charts. Say both of

> the parties gets it right for atleast 50% cases, then we can

conclude

> that both are right in the methods used. No method is a better

> method. There are two ways of seeing the same thing. Are you game

for

> such an experiment. are you ready for such an honest research?

 

>

> Best wishes

> partha

>

> vedic astrology, "Sreenadh" <sreelid>

> wrote:

> >

> > Dear Partha sarathy ji,

> > Can we write with out knowing how to use a pen? Can we treat

> patients

> > with out having the fundamental idea about medicines? Without

> having

> > the clear idea about the theoretical (which later transforms

itself

> > into application) foundation of Astrology, how we are going to

> solve

> > "puzzles and quizzes" you mentioned?

> > Now coming to this theoretical discussion, many are not at all

> > confused about the issue, "How to predict with Natal chart?". That

> is

> > why many predictions come true!!. Now coming to the other part

"How

> to

> > predict with Vargas/Vargacharts/D-Charts?" there is confusion

> > everywhere! And the curious thing is that many are using methods

(D-

> > Charts etc), which is not at all supported/sanctioned by the

> classics

> > !!!

> > If one cannot even see methods of primary calculation, how can he

> > think about solving all those calculus and trigonometric puzzles?

> > I am not saying that we should not use new methods. What I am

> trying

> > to say is that we should try to understand the original methods

> used

> > by the Rishis/Acharyas in interpreting horoscopes. Then only we

> could

> > say that we are the true seekers of astrological knowledge. With

> out

> > correctly constructing/understanding the basement, how can we

> create

> > big buildings?

> > Love,

> > Sreenadh

> >

> > Message: 4

> > Sat, 29 Oct 2005 11:24:11 -0000

> > "V.Partha sarathy" <partvinu@g...>

> > Re: Rasi and div charts (Pradeep) Shri Narasimha - 4

> >

> > Sir

> >

> > Astrology will not be proved by participating in theoretical

> debates.

> > Participate in few puzzles and quizzes and show us your talent

> > instead of talking about theories

> >

> > Best wishes

> > partha

> >

>

[Guest guest]

Dear Partha ji,

>Assuming authority over what rishis said is nothing short of

>blasphemy, simply because only a maharishi can understand what

>maharishi said.

Maharshis wrote it not for maharshis, but for their students. Am I

right? Any body who is interested in astrology, if he is an

uncorrupted personality (i.e. true to astrology and logic), and has

enough Sanskrit knowledge to understand the well written slokas, then

those slokas are clear and straight forward. Just understand them as

they are, that is enough. Don't try to misinterpret and draw new

(unintended) meanings from them, which are not warranted by clean

Sanskrit and its grammar.

>Mind you both are absolutely different things. People are mostly

>relying on commentaries made by some eminent Sanskrit scholars.

>Rishis and scholars are two different class of people

>Rishis come from a spiritual perspective, whatever they say is from a

>totally different context than whatever a scholar says. So relying on

>some wishy washy "interpretation" to bring a point home is nothing

>short of foolhardiness.

You should remember it always. Because it is the point we are trying

to make. Don't depend on commentaries and learn those slokas directly,

and understand their meaning. It is simple enough.

>All i am saying is that instead of arguing endlessly on what rishis

>said, let us be open and try to experiment with different "ideas" of

>what rishis said.

If you don't know what Rishis said, then how you are going to

"experiment with different *ideas* of what Rishis said"?!!!!

>I am talking about live charts. Let us use our analytical tools and

come

>to a conclusion on these blind charts.

But dear Partha I am not taking about *your* analytical tools and

*our* analytical tools!!! (Is it that your ego comes into play here?)

We are just talking about the analytical tools Rishis supplied us

with.

>After predicting for about 10000 blind charts. Say both of

>the parties gets it right for at least 50% cases, then we can

conclude

>that both are right in the methods used. No method is a better

>method. There are two ways of seeing the same thing. Are you game for

>such an experiment. are you ready for such an honest research?

I cannot help, but compassionately say, dear friend, Are we trying

to understand the classics in the real perspective of the Rishis, or

are we participating in some online betting game? Do you know,

honestly interpreting a single chart may take tenths if not hundreds

of pages. 10,000 x 10 = 100,000 pages. Go for it, and you can waste

your life in any way you like. But if you like, please turn towards

the light, and blindness would be over.

You can become a dice if you want and turn and fall in any way you

like. We would like to remain with our dedication to the study of

classics and the methods shown by the rishis, trying to understand

them properly. What is the point in experimenting without the

theoretical understanding of the basic concepts? Even without basic

theoretical study of any subject, what discovery would have been

possible? I know that any science student/scientist, any computer

student/expert, or any one seriously engaged in research/analysis

could understand my point.

If you were sincere why 10,000 just 10 would have been enough. But

you asked for 10,000, it shows that it is the other way round. Again,

it is not some kind of competition, but a discussion (for knowing and

sharing) under progress. Don't bring in your ego in-between and make

such challenges. I am sure that your reputed Gurus like Sanjay Rath

and PVR are not at all stupid enough to make such challenges. At least

in the case of PVR I am sure, he will not make such a challenge

(knowing the absurdity involved)!! He knows well his knowledge and

limitations. I don't know much about SR and does not have a personal

relation. Therefore I cannot say how he would respond. Consult them

and just know what is there advice.

BTW:- What are the researches you have done till today? Was the

outcome published? How much experience you got in the real research

field? As you speak about research, I am just curious. People always

need a basic understanding of research to speak about such things. Any

body in the field of real research could understand my view I think.

>No method is a better method.

No, if some of the methods are really good, then the Rishi's would not

have told us about them. Do you think so?

>There are two ways of seeing the same thing.

Dear Partha, you are wrong. There more than a thousand ways of seeing

the same thing, but all of them may not be correct!!!

>Are you game for such an experiment? Are you ready for such an honest

research?

Be the game of many things you fool around with. It is not honesty,

but ego reflected in a different manner. Have you heard the story of

Socrates? The priest said that 'Socrates is the best scholar living

in the earth'. Socrates replied, 'There might be some thing wrong. The

only thing I know is that I know nothing'. The priest said, 'That is

why I said that he is the best scholar living in the earth, because he

at least knows that his knowledge is limited'. There is a moral in

this story. If you have time, spend the time of predicting at least 10

horoscopes on it!!! You will understand.

BTW: Do you know Sanskrit, then I will supply you with hundreds of

slokas that supports the right view on Vargas. (If you don't know

Sanskrit I can't help. Which also means that you are depending on

secondary evidence, the *commentaries* you mentioned earlier, which

will remain *commentaries* for ever!!!) How many slokas you can supply

that supports your view? You said: "I was never denying that basics

and foundations are not important. I myself stick to basics when

trying to make predictions." I count on it. But I should also point

out "With out knowing what are the basics, you can not stick to the

basics". For example you are using 'Houses' for prediction. Do you

know what is a house in the perspective of the Rishis? You are

speaking about D-charts and Sub lords? What did they told about them?

You speak about significators. Do you know what are the things for

which each Rasi is significator? You speak about Ardhas/Different

types of Lagnas etc. Do you feel that the Rishis are so ignorant to

ignore all these things, and give importance to Sign-Nakshatra-House-

Planet alone?

Just asking about some fundamentals that you feel you rightly knows

about. If you know please teach us based on *modern classics*. Because

we are some ignorant followers of some ancient ignorant Rishis. The

*modern Rishis* may know better with their *tapasya*!!!! (Since 'only

a maharishi can understand what maharishi said', we may need the

modern age maharshis who bost about their *tapasya*.)

Again please pardon my ignorance. I have nothing against you, and

just thought of discussing some points. The great Vedic sages said

'Ano bhadra krethavoyanthu viswatha'. If you don't understand, I will

translate, 'Let knowledge come to me from every direction'. Means I am

not against modern techniques, but just would like to stand boldly

against the misinterpretation of ancient classics on astrology,

especially Rishi Horas. I repeat I am ready to learn and discuss the

new techniques, but we should learn and master the old techniques

correctly. After distinguishing new techniques as new techniques, we

could study and do research on the same. But don't mix and match the

two, and start arguing that rishi horas/ancient techniques are not

sufficient without studying them properly, and state that new

techniques are better than the older ones, just because you don't know

how to use them properly. Also if you are a sincere seeker of

astrological knowledge, 'who stick to basics' don't support the

misinterpretation of ancient slokas.

BTW: I heard someone stating that your predictions are 100% accurate.

As far as I know people use the % maths mostly when speaking about

things they don't know. Am I right? What is your experience on the

same?

Please don't come up with measuring my spirituality. It might be in

low measurers compared to your *tapasya* and *all knowingness*.

Ohm Namasivaya. Ohm Namasivaya. Ohm Namasivaya. (At times I don't

like my destructive mood. I should calm down a little, and avoid such

discussions. Yes, I know, and in future try obliging to do the same)

Again to all, pardon my words.

Love,

Sreenadh

 

vedic astrology, "V.Partha sarathy"

<partvinu@g...> wrote:

>

> Dear Sreenadh ji

>

> I was never denying that basics and foundations are not important. I

> myself stick to basics when trying to make predictions. But the

point

> here was about "interpretation" of classics.

>

> Interpretation if I may say is "interpretation" only!

> Assuming authority over what rishis said is nothing short of

> blasphemy, simply because only a maharishi can understand what

> maharishi said. Here atleast people who are voicing concerns over

the

> tampering of classics or is it rather tampering with

"interpretation"

> of classics?

> Mind you both are absolutely different things. People are mostly

> relying on commentaries made by some eminent sanskrit scholars.

>

> Rishis and scholars are two different class of people

> Rishis come from a spiritual perspective, whatever they say is from

a

> totally different context than whatever a scholar says. So relying

on

> some wishy washy "interpretation" to bring a point home is nothing

> short of foolhardiness.

>

> All i am saying is that instead of arguing endlessly on what rishis

> said, let us be open and try to experiment with different "ideas" of

> what rishis said. I am not even talking about post morterm. I am

> talking about live charts. Let us use our analytical tools and come

> to a conclusion on these blind charts.

> Let us not be hasty in saying that if one got it wrong for few cases

> is wrong with his understanding. The same could apply to both

> parties. After predicting for about 10000 blind charts. Say both of

> the parties gets it right for atleast 50% cases, then we can

conclude

> that both are right in the methods used. No method is a better

> method. There are two ways of seeing the same thing. Are you game

for

> such an experiment. are you ready for such an honest research?

>

> Best wishes

> partha

>

> vedic astrology, "Sreenadh" <sreelid>

> wrote:

> >

> > Dear Partha sarathy ji,

> > Can we write with out knowing how to use a pen? Can we treat

> patients

> > with out having the fundamental idea about medicines? Without

> having

> > the clear idea about the theoretical (which later transforms

itself

> > into application) foundation of Astrology, how we are going to

> solve

> > "puzzles and quizzes" you mentioned?

> > Now coming to this theoretical discussion, many are not at all

> > confused about the issue, "How to predict with Natal chart?". That

> is

> > why many predictions come true!!. Now coming to the other part

"How

> to

> > predict with Vargas/Vargacharts/D-Charts?" there is confusion

> > everywhere! And the curious thing is that many are using methods

(D-

> > Charts etc), which is not at all supported/sanctioned by the

> classics

> > !!!

> > If one cannot even see methods of primary calculation, how can he

> > think about solving all those calculus and trigonometric puzzles?

> > I am not saying that we should not use new methods. What I am

> trying

> > to say is that we should try to understand the original methods

> used

> > by the Rishis/Acharyas in interpreting horoscopes. Then only we

> could

> > say that we are the true seekers of astrological knowledge. With

> out

> > correctly constructing/understanding the basement, how can we

> create

> > big buildings?

> > Love,

> > Sreenadh

> >

> > Message: 4

> > Sat, 29 Oct 2005 11:24:11 -0000

> > "V.Partha sarathy" <partvinu@g...>

> > Re: Rasi and div charts (Pradeep) Shri Narasimha - 4

> >

> > Sir

> >

> > Astrology will not be proved by participating in theoretical

> debates.

> > Participate in few puzzles and quizzes and show us your talent

> > instead of talking about theories

> >

> > Best wishes

> > partha

> >

>