Guest guest Posted June 24, 2006 Report Share Posted June 24, 2006 Dear Rohini ji I always assumed,my mails as clear,and your mail counters my beleif. So it means for the first time i am clear:-). Thanks for making me learn a lesson.Clear examples can drive home the points better. Dashadhyayi by Thalakkulathu bhattathiri ,says navamshas are navapranas.Trimshamashas are Chakshuraadi Pancha Jnanendriyas.Saintly astrological scholars like Bhattathiri having traditional knowledge,will not write even a word ,which is unauthentic. Thus if we consider rashichakra as a serpent as Chandrashekhar ji has mentioned,every amsha is not another serpent.But they are the various subtle essences which make the serpent active.Altogether we call them Rashi chakra.Kshethra /Navamsha etc points to individual aspects. Shri K.N.Raojis understanding on Karakamsha is conmforming to principles of jyotish is my personal view. If we ask ,whether the monkey is longer or monkeys tail - initially we might be confused.But the vaild point -monkeys length is inclusive of its tail removes all our confusions. Similarly Rashi chakra is inclsuive of all the amshas. Thanks Pradeep , "crystal pages" <jyotish_vani wrote: > > Bravo Pradeep, > > I think you are on to something really significant -- now said in > words -- shabda and vakkyaas! > > Navmasha being the chart view of reality from the tattwic (essential) > dimension makes sense! > > So rashi for the physical, navamsha from the essence, the spirit, as > the 9th represents, -- kind of like what most of us really > understood, hopefully! > > RR > > , "vijayadas_pradeep" > <vijayadas_pradeep@> wrote: > > > > Dear Hari Namaste > > > > Take planets Mercury/Mars/Jupiter -placed in the first degree of > > Aries,Mars/Sag respectively.They are physically,(OK lets say > > relative/apparent) present within the boundaries of > > Aries/Leo/Sag.Distance between Mars/Mercury is 120 degrees and > > Mars/Jupiter is 240 degrees(Physical seperation).(Apparent need not > > be a concern as ,we follow the SAME benchmark(w.r to earth) for all > > Rashi Chakra placements). > > > > Now let us take Navamsha.All the three are drawn as conjunct in > > Aries.Do you think it is an apparent conjunction as above?.Then > what > > is navamsha?First 3.2 degrees of any FIRY sign is always assigned > to > > Aries.Any planet placed within this degree span will relate to > Aries > > as navamsha.This is a tattwa based sambandha and does not represent > > any placement.On the other hand Rashi chakra placement is an > > astronomically measured value,adjusted for ayanamsha > > correction.Distance/Conjunction in Rashi chakra -points towards > > physical seperation/proximity while navamsha points towards > > sambandhas.It has no connection with distance.Hope the difference > is > > clear this time. > > > > > > |om| > > Dear Pradeep, namaste > > > > M-W dictionary defines conjunction as given below: > > > > con·junc·tion > > Function: noun > > 1 : the act or an instance of conjoining : the state of being > > conjoined : > > 2 : occurrence together in time or space : > > 3 a : the apparent meeting or passing of two or more celestial > > bodies in the same degree of the zodiac b : a configuration in > which > > two celestial bodies have their least apparent separation > > 4 : an uninflected linguistic form that joins together sentences, > > clauses, phrases, or words > > 5 : a complex sentence in logic true if and only if each of its > > components is true > > > > Note meaning (3a) above. It says apparent and not PHYSICAL. > > Physically conjunct is a non-reality. Thus when viewed against the > > backdrop of the rasi, we say that two planets are conjunct when > they > > appear to be in the same rasi. This is apparent and not true in > > reality. As pointed out earlier, rasi is also imaginary; it has no > > physical boundaries in space. > > > > The point I am driving at is that when we say that two planets are > > conjunct in a rasi purely on a non-physical basis (apparent), what > > is wrong with defining similar conjunctions in vargas? > > > > Regarding varga (division) + uttama (best) = vargottama, M-W > (Monier- > > Williams) dictionary gives the following meanings for uttama: > > > > uppermost, highest, chief, most elevated, principal, best , > > excellent RV. AV. AitBr. Mn. Pan5cat. &c. (often ifc. , e.g. % > > {dvijo7ttama} , best of the twice-born i.e. a Bra1hman Mn.) first, > > greatest, the highest (tone) the most removed or last in place or > > order or time etc. > > > > best regards > > Hari > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 25, 2006 Report Share Posted June 25, 2006 Dear Pradeepji, Your statement that rashi contains all amshas is astronomically correct. What intrigues me, though, and I think this has been voiced by me earlier is that Parashara described rashi as one of the vargas and not a separate category which then comprises the remaining 15 vargas as described in his BPHS. So I would like to think that Sage was pointing at some degree of (functional) similarity between Rashi and other amshas and not one subsumed by another. However, in my last email I was not referring to your view about varga not being part of a chakra, or kundali (as a snake, if the imagery is permitted), but the fact that you connected the coincidence of rashi tattwas and amsha tattwas, etc. A similar qualitative link arises between the vargottama state which links three vargas: rashi, navamsha and drekkana. RR , "vijayadas_pradeep" <vijayadas_pradeep wrote: > > Dear Rohini ji > > I always assumed,my mails as clear,and your mail counters my beleif. > So it means for the first time i am clear:-). > Thanks for making me learn a lesson.Clear examples can drive home the > points better. > > Dashadhyayi by Thalakkulathu bhattathiri ,says navamshas are > navapranas.Trimshamashas are Chakshuraadi Pancha Jnanendriyas.Saintly > astrological scholars like Bhattathiri having traditional > knowledge,will not write even a word ,which is unauthentic. > > Thus if we consider rashichakra as a serpent as Chandrashekhar ji has > mentioned,every amsha is not another serpent.But they are the various > subtle essences which make the serpent active.Altogether we call them > Rashi chakra.Kshethra /Navamsha etc points to individual aspects. > > Shri K.N.Raojis understanding on Karakamsha is conmforming to > principles of jyotish is my personal view. > > If we ask ,whether the monkey is longer or monkeys tail - initially we > might be confused.But the vaild point -monkeys length is inclusive of > its tail removes all our confusions. > > Similarly Rashi chakra is inclsuive of all the amshas. > > Thanks > Pradeep > > , "crystal pages" > <jyotish_vani@> wrote: > > > > Bravo Pradeep, > > > > I think you are on to something really significant -- now said in > > words -- shabda and vakkyaas! > > > > Navmasha being the chart view of reality from the tattwic (essential) > > dimension makes sense! > > > > So rashi for the physical, navamsha from the essence, the spirit, as > > the 9th represents, -- kind of like what most of us really > > understood, hopefully! > > > > RR > > > > , "vijayadas_pradeep" > > <vijayadas_pradeep@> wrote: > > > > > > Dear Hari Namaste > > > > > > Take planets Mercury/Mars/Jupiter -placed in the first degree of > > > Aries,Mars/Sag respectively.They are physically,(OK lets say > > > relative/apparent) present within the boundaries of > > > Aries/Leo/Sag.Distance between Mars/Mercury is 120 degrees and > > > Mars/Jupiter is 240 degrees(Physical seperation).(Apparent need not > > > be a concern as ,we follow the SAME benchmark(w.r to earth) for all > > > Rashi Chakra placements). > > > > > > Now let us take Navamsha.All the three are drawn as conjunct in > > > Aries.Do you think it is an apparent conjunction as above?.Then > > what > > > is navamsha?First 3.2 degrees of any FIRY sign is always assigned > > to > > > Aries.Any planet placed within this degree span will relate to > > Aries > > > as navamsha.This is a tattwa based sambandha and does not represent > > > any placement.On the other hand Rashi chakra placement is an > > > astronomically measured value,adjusted for ayanamsha > > > correction.Distance/Conjunction in Rashi chakra -points towards > > > physical seperation/proximity while navamsha points towards > > > sambandhas.It has no connection with distance.Hope the difference > > is > > > clear this time. > > > > > > > > > |om| > > > Dear Pradeep, namaste > > > > > > M-W dictionary defines conjunction as given below: > > > > > > con·junc·tion > > > Function: noun > > > 1 : the act or an instance of conjoining : the state of being > > > conjoined : > > > 2 : occurrence together in time or space : > > > 3 a : the apparent meeting or passing of two or more celestial > > > bodies in the same degree of the zodiac b : a configuration in > > which > > > two celestial bodies have their least apparent separation > > > 4 : an uninflected linguistic form that joins together sentences, > > > clauses, phrases, or words > > > 5 : a complex sentence in logic true if and only if each of its > > > components is true > > > > > > Note meaning (3a) above. It says apparent and not PHYSICAL. > > > Physically conjunct is a non-reality. Thus when viewed against the > > > backdrop of the rasi, we say that two planets are conjunct when > > they > > > appear to be in the same rasi. This is apparent and not true in > > > reality. As pointed out earlier, rasi is also imaginary; it has no > > > physical boundaries in space. > > > > > > The point I am driving at is that when we say that two planets are > > > conjunct in a rasi purely on a non-physical basis (apparent), what > > > is wrong with defining similar conjunctions in vargas? > > > > > > Regarding varga (division) + uttama (best) = vargottama, M-W > > (Monier- > > > Williams) dictionary gives the following meanings for uttama: > > > > > > uppermost, highest, chief, most elevated, principal, best , > > > excellent RV. AV. AitBr. Mn. Pan5cat. &c. (often ifc. , e.g. % > > > {dvijo7ttama} , best of the twice-born i.e. a Bra1hman Mn.) first, > > > greatest, the highest (tone) the most removed or last in place or > > > order or time etc. > > > > > > best regards > > > Hari > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 25, 2006 Report Share Posted June 25, 2006 Dear Rohini, Shloka 1 of Shodashavargaadhya makes it clear the Maitreya asks about divisions within Bhavas. The subsequent shlokas tells all the 16 divisions including the Rasi/bhava. If I am not mistaken one of the meaning of Varga, besides the commonly understood division, is a set. Hence Rasi representing a set containing other 15 Vargas could also be called Varga. Chandrashekhar. crystal pages wrote: > > Dear Pradeepji, > Your statement that rashi contains all amshas is astronomically > correct. What intrigues me, though, and I think this has been voiced > by me earlier is that Parashara described rashi as one of the vargas > and not a separate category which then comprises the remaining 15 > vargas as described in his BPHS. So I would like to think that Sage > was pointing at some degree of (functional) similarity between Rashi > and other amshas and not one subsumed by another. > > However, in my last email I was not referring to your view about > varga not being part of a chakra, or kundali (as a snake, if the > imagery is permitted), but the fact that you connected the > coincidence of rashi tattwas and amsha tattwas, etc. A similar > qualitative link arises between the vargottama state which links > three vargas: rashi, navamsha and drekkana. > > RR > > > <%40>, "vijayadas_pradeep" > <vijayadas_pradeep wrote: > > > > Dear Rohini ji > > > > I always assumed,my mails as clear,and your mail counters my beleif. > > So it means for the first time i am clear:-). > > Thanks for making me learn a lesson.Clear examples can drive home > the > > points better. > > > > Dashadhyayi by Thalakkulathu bhattathiri ,says navamshas are > > navapranas.Trimshamashas are Chakshuraadi Pancha > Jnanendriyas.Saintly > > astrological scholars like Bhattathiri having traditional > > knowledge,will not write even a word ,which is unauthentic. > > > > Thus if we consider rashichakra as a serpent as Chandrashekhar ji > has > > mentioned,every amsha is not another serpent.But they are the > various > > subtle essences which make the serpent active.Altogether we call > them > > Rashi chakra.Kshethra /Navamsha etc points to individual aspects. > > > > Shri K.N.Raojis understanding on Karakamsha is conmforming to > > principles of jyotish is my personal view. > > > > If we ask ,whether the monkey is longer or monkeys tail - initially > we > > might be confused.But the vaild point -monkeys length is inclusive > of > > its tail removes all our confusions. > > > > Similarly Rashi chakra is inclsuive of all the amshas. > > > > Thanks > > Pradeep > > > > > <%40>, "crystal pages" > > <jyotish_vani@> wrote: > > > > > > Bravo Pradeep, > > > > > > I think you are on to something really significant -- now said in > > > words -- shabda and vakkyaas! > > > > > > Navmasha being the chart view of reality from the tattwic > (essential) > > > dimension makes sense! > > > > > > So rashi for the physical, navamsha from the essence, the spirit, > as > > > the 9th represents, -- kind of like what most of us really > > > understood, hopefully! > > > > > > RR > > > > > > > <%40>, "vijayadas_pradeep" > > > <vijayadas_pradeep@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Dear Hari Namaste > > > > > > > > Take planets Mercury/Mars/Jupiter -placed in the first degree > of > > > > Aries,Mars/Sag respectively.They are physically,(OK lets say > > > > relative/apparent) present within the boundaries of > > > > Aries/Leo/Sag.Distance between Mars/Mercury is 120 degrees and > > > > Mars/Jupiter is 240 degrees(Physical seperation).(Apparent need > not > > > > be a concern as ,we follow the SAME benchmark(w.r to earth) for > all > > > > Rashi Chakra placements). > > > > > > > > Now let us take Navamsha.All the three are drawn as conjunct in > > > > Aries.Do you think it is an apparent conjunction as above?.Then > > > what > > > > is navamsha?First 3.2 degrees of any FIRY sign is always > assigned > > > to > > > > Aries.Any planet placed within this degree span will relate to > > > Aries > > > > as navamsha.This is a tattwa based sambandha and does not > represent > > > > any placement.On the other hand Rashi chakra placement is an > > > > astronomically measured value,adjusted for ayanamsha > > > > correction.Distance/Conjunction in Rashi chakra -points towards > > > > physical seperation/proximity while navamsha points towards > > > > sambandhas.It has no connection with distance.Hope the > difference > > > is > > > > clear this time. > > > > > > > > > > > > |om| > > > > Dear Pradeep, namaste > > > > > > > > M-W dictionary defines conjunction as given below: > > > > > > > > con·junc·tion > > > > Function: noun > > > > 1 : the act or an instance of conjoining : the state of being > > > > conjoined : > > > > 2 : occurrence together in time or space : > > > > 3 a : the apparent meeting or passing of two or more celestial > > > > bodies in the same degree of the zodiac b : a configuration in > > > which > > > > two celestial bodies have their least apparent separation > > > > 4 : an uninflected linguistic form that joins together > sentences, > > > > clauses, phrases, or words > > > > 5 : a complex sentence in logic true if and only if each of its > > > > components is true > > > > > > > > Note meaning (3a) above. It says apparent and not PHYSICAL. > > > > Physically conjunct is a non-reality. Thus when viewed against > the > > > > backdrop of the rasi, we say that two planets are conjunct when > > > they > > > > appear to be in the same rasi. This is apparent and not true in > > > > reality. As pointed out earlier, rasi is also imaginary; it has > no > > > > physical boundaries in space. > > > > > > > > The point I am driving at is that when we say that two planets > are > > > > conjunct in a rasi purely on a non-physical basis (apparent), > what > > > > is wrong with defining similar conjunctions in vargas? > > > > > > > > Regarding varga (division) + uttama (best) = vargottama, M-W > > > (Monier- > > > > Williams) dictionary gives the following meanings for uttama: > > > > > > > > uppermost, highest, chief, most elevated, principal, best , > > > > excellent RV. AV. AitBr. Mn. Pan5cat. &c. (often ifc. , e.g. % > > > > {dvijo7ttama} , best of the twice-born i.e. a Bra1hman Mn.) > first, > > > > greatest, the highest (tone) the most removed or last in place > or > > > > order or time etc. > > > > > > > > best regards > > > > Hari > > > > > > > > > > > > ------ > > > > Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.9.2/373 - Release 6/22/2006 > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 25, 2006 Report Share Posted June 25, 2006 Dear Rohini ji I think i have requested that,you may kindly address me without a ji.It is more comfortable. What i have been saying in simple words is the following.Rashi Chakra is not a varga.But every rashi contains set of vargas.The first varga is a Rashi of 30 degree span.Inorder to understand this concept properly,i have been stressing to use the word Kshethra for the first varga-though Rashi and Kshethra are synonymns. Thanks Pradeep , "crystal pages" <jyotish_vani wrote: > > Dear Pradeepji, > Your statement that rashi contains all amshas is astronomically > correct. What intrigues me, though, and I think this has been voiced > by me earlier is that Parashara described rashi as one of the vargas > and not a separate category which then comprises the remaining 15 > vargas as described in his BPHS. So I would like to think that Sage > was pointing at some degree of (functional) similarity between Rashi > and other amshas and not one subsumed by another. > > However, in my last email I was not referring to your view about > varga not being part of a chakra, or kundali (as a snake, if the > imagery is permitted), but the fact that you connected the > coincidence of rashi tattwas and amsha tattwas, etc. A similar > qualitative link arises between the vargottama state which links > three vargas: rashi, navamsha and drekkana. > > RR > > , "vijayadas_pradeep" > <vijayadas_pradeep@> wrote: > > > > Dear Rohini ji > > > > I always assumed,my mails as clear,and your mail counters my beleif. > > So it means for the first time i am clear:-). > > Thanks for making me learn a lesson.Clear examples can drive home > the > > points better. > > > > Dashadhyayi by Thalakkulathu bhattathiri ,says navamshas are > > navapranas.Trimshamashas are Chakshuraadi Pancha > Jnanendriyas.Saintly > > astrological scholars like Bhattathiri having traditional > > knowledge,will not write even a word ,which is unauthentic. > > > > Thus if we consider rashichakra as a serpent as Chandrashekhar ji > has > > mentioned,every amsha is not another serpent.But they are the > various > > subtle essences which make the serpent active.Altogether we call > them > > Rashi chakra.Kshethra /Navamsha etc points to individual aspects. > > > > Shri K.N.Raojis understanding on Karakamsha is conmforming to > > principles of jyotish is my personal view. > > > > If we ask ,whether the monkey is longer or monkeys tail - initially > we > > might be confused.But the vaild point -monkeys length is inclusive > of > > its tail removes all our confusions. > > > > Similarly Rashi chakra is inclsuive of all the amshas. > > > > Thanks > > Pradeep > > > > , "crystal pages" > > <jyotish_vani@> wrote: > > > > > > Bravo Pradeep, > > > > > > I think you are on to something really significant -- now said in > > > words -- shabda and vakkyaas! > > > > > > Navmasha being the chart view of reality from the tattwic > (essential) > > > dimension makes sense! > > > > > > So rashi for the physical, navamsha from the essence, the spirit, > as > > > the 9th represents, -- kind of like what most of us really > > > understood, hopefully! > > > > > > RR > > > > > > , "vijayadas_pradeep" > > > <vijayadas_pradeep@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Dear Hari Namaste > > > > > > > > Take planets Mercury/Mars/Jupiter -placed in the first degree > of > > > > Aries,Mars/Sag respectively.They are physically,(OK lets say > > > > relative/apparent) present within the boundaries of > > > > Aries/Leo/Sag.Distance between Mars/Mercury is 120 degrees and > > > > Mars/Jupiter is 240 degrees(Physical seperation).(Apparent need > not > > > > be a concern as ,we follow the SAME benchmark(w.r to earth) for > all > > > > Rashi Chakra placements). > > > > > > > > Now let us take Navamsha.All the three are drawn as conjunct in > > > > Aries.Do you think it is an apparent conjunction as above?.Then > > > what > > > > is navamsha?First 3.2 degrees of any FIRY sign is always > assigned > > > to > > > > Aries.Any planet placed within this degree span will relate to > > > Aries > > > > as navamsha.This is a tattwa based sambandha and does not > represent > > > > any placement.On the other hand Rashi chakra placement is an > > > > astronomically measured value,adjusted for ayanamsha > > > > correction.Distance/Conjunction in Rashi chakra -points towards > > > > physical seperation/proximity while navamsha points towards > > > > sambandhas.It has no connection with distance.Hope the > difference > > > is > > > > clear this time. > > > > > > > > > > > > |om| > > > > Dear Pradeep, namaste > > > > > > > > M-W dictionary defines conjunction as given below: > > > > > > > > con·junc·tion > > > > Function: noun > > > > 1 : the act or an instance of conjoining : the state of being > > > > conjoined : > > > > 2 : occurrence together in time or space : > > > > 3 a : the apparent meeting or passing of two or more celestial > > > > bodies in the same degree of the zodiac b : a configuration in > > > which > > > > two celestial bodies have their least apparent separation > > > > 4 : an uninflected linguistic form that joins together > sentences, > > > > clauses, phrases, or words > > > > 5 : a complex sentence in logic true if and only if each of its > > > > components is true > > > > > > > > Note meaning (3a) above. It says apparent and not PHYSICAL. > > > > Physically conjunct is a non-reality. Thus when viewed against > the > > > > backdrop of the rasi, we say that two planets are conjunct when > > > they > > > > appear to be in the same rasi. This is apparent and not true in > > > > reality. As pointed out earlier, rasi is also imaginary; it has > no > > > > physical boundaries in space. > > > > > > > > The point I am driving at is that when we say that two planets > are > > > > conjunct in a rasi purely on a non-physical basis (apparent), > what > > > > is wrong with defining similar conjunctions in vargas? > > > > > > > > Regarding varga (division) + uttama (best) = vargottama, M-W > > > (Monier- > > > > Williams) dictionary gives the following meanings for uttama: > > > > > > > > uppermost, highest, chief, most elevated, principal, best , > > > > excellent RV. AV. AitBr. Mn. Pan5cat. &c. (often ifc. , e.g. % > > > > {dvijo7ttama} , best of the twice-born i.e. a Bra1hman Mn.) > first, > > > > greatest, the highest (tone) the most removed or last in place > or > > > > order or time etc. > > > > > > > > best regards > > > > Hari > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 25, 2006 Report Share Posted June 25, 2006 Dear Chandrashekhar ji My understanding is the following.By definition Rashi chakara is not a varga,but every rashi(30 degree span) is a varga.It also contains other vargas.This is exactly what you have said.The first varga is one rashi itself -another name being Kshethra. Rashi chakra on the other hand is the sum total of all these.Kindly correct if you have different views. Respect Pradeep , Chandrashekhar <chandrashekhar46 wrote: > > Dear Rohini, > Shloka 1 of Shodashavargaadhya makes it clear the Maitreya asks about > divisions within Bhavas. The subsequent shlokas tells all the 16 > divisions including the Rasi/bhava. If I am not mistaken one of the > meaning of Varga, besides the commonly understood division, is a set. > Hence Rasi representing a set containing other 15 Vargas could also be > called Varga. > > Chandrashekhar. > > crystal pages wrote: > > > > Dear Pradeepji, > > Your statement that rashi contains all amshas is astronomically > > correct. What intrigues me, though, and I think this has been voiced > > by me earlier is that Parashara described rashi as one of the vargas > > and not a separate category which then comprises the remaining 15 > > vargas as described in his BPHS. So I would like to think that Sage > > was pointing at some degree of (functional) similarity between Rashi > > and other amshas and not one subsumed by another. > > > > However, in my last email I was not referring to your view about > > varga not being part of a chakra, or kundali (as a snake, if the > > imagery is permitted), but the fact that you connected the > > coincidence of rashi tattwas and amsha tattwas, etc. A similar > > qualitative link arises between the vargottama state which links > > three vargas: rashi, navamsha and drekkana. > > > > RR > > > > > > <%40>, "vijayadas_pradeep" > > <vijayadas_pradeep@> wrote: > > > > > > Dear Rohini ji > > > > > > I always assumed,my mails as clear,and your mail counters my beleif. > > > So it means for the first time i am clear:-). > > > Thanks for making me learn a lesson.Clear examples can drive home > > the > > > points better. > > > > > > Dashadhyayi by Thalakkulathu bhattathiri ,says navamshas are > > > navapranas.Trimshamashas are Chakshuraadi Pancha > > Jnanendriyas.Saintly > > > astrological scholars like Bhattathiri having traditional > > > knowledge,will not write even a word ,which is unauthentic. > > > > > > Thus if we consider rashichakra as a serpent as Chandrashekhar ji > > has > > > mentioned,every amsha is not another serpent.But they are the > > various > > > subtle essences which make the serpent active.Altogether we call > > them > > > Rashi chakra.Kshethra /Navamsha etc points to individual aspects. > > > > > > Shri K.N.Raojis understanding on Karakamsha is conmforming to > > > principles of jyotish is my personal view. > > > > > > If we ask ,whether the monkey is longer or monkeys tail - initially > > we > > > might be confused.But the vaild point -monkeys length is inclusive > > of > > > its tail removes all our confusions. > > > > > > Similarly Rashi chakra is inclsuive of all the amshas. > > > > > > Thanks > > > Pradeep > > > > > > > > <%40>, "crystal pages" > > > <jyotish_vani@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Bravo Pradeep, > > > > > > > > I think you are on to something really significant -- now said in > > > > words -- shabda and vakkyaas! > > > > > > > > Navmasha being the chart view of reality from the tattwic > > (essential) > > > > dimension makes sense! > > > > > > > > So rashi for the physical, navamsha from the essence, the spirit, > > as > > > > the 9th represents, -- kind of like what most of us really > > > > understood, hopefully! > > > > > > > > RR > > > > > > > > > > <%40>, "vijayadas_pradeep" > > > > <vijayadas_pradeep@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Dear Hari Namaste > > > > > > > > > > Take planets Mercury/Mars/Jupiter -placed in the first degree > > of > > > > > Aries,Mars/Sag respectively.They are physically,(OK lets say > > > > > relative/apparent) present within the boundaries of > > > > > Aries/Leo/Sag.Distance between Mars/Mercury is 120 degrees and > > > > > Mars/Jupiter is 240 degrees(Physical seperation).(Apparent need > > not > > > > > be a concern as ,we follow the SAME benchmark(w.r to earth) for > > all > > > > > Rashi Chakra placements). > > > > > > > > > > Now let us take Navamsha.All the three are drawn as conjunct in > > > > > Aries.Do you think it is an apparent conjunction as above?.Then > > > > what > > > > > is navamsha?First 3.2 degrees of any FIRY sign is always > > assigned > > > > to > > > > > Aries.Any planet placed within this degree span will relate to > > > > Aries > > > > > as navamsha.This is a tattwa based sambandha and does not > > represent > > > > > any placement.On the other hand Rashi chakra placement is an > > > > > astronomically measured value,adjusted for ayanamsha > > > > > correction.Distance/Conjunction in Rashi chakra -points towards > > > > > physical seperation/proximity while navamsha points towards > > > > > sambandhas.It has no connection with distance.Hope the > > difference > > > > is > > > > > clear this time. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > |om| > > > > > Dear Pradeep, namaste > > > > > > > > > > M-W dictionary defines conjunction as given below: > > > > > > > > > > con·junc·tion > > > > > Function: noun > > > > > 1 : the act or an instance of conjoining : the state of being > > > > > conjoined : > > > > > 2 : occurrence together in time or space : > > > > > 3 a : the apparent meeting or passing of two or more celestial > > > > > bodies in the same degree of the zodiac b : a configuration in > > > > which > > > > > two celestial bodies have their least apparent separation > > > > > 4 : an uninflected linguistic form that joins together > > sentences, > > > > > clauses, phrases, or words > > > > > 5 : a complex sentence in logic true if and only if each of its > > > > > components is true > > > > > > > > > > Note meaning (3a) above. It says apparent and not PHYSICAL. > > > > > Physically conjunct is a non-reality. Thus when viewed against > > the > > > > > backdrop of the rasi, we say that two planets are conjunct when > > > > they > > > > > appear to be in the same rasi. This is apparent and not true in > > > > > reality. As pointed out earlier, rasi is also imaginary; it has > > no > > > > > physical boundaries in space. > > > > > > > > > > The point I am driving at is that when we say that two planets > > are > > > > > conjunct in a rasi purely on a non-physical basis (apparent), > > what > > > > > is wrong with defining similar conjunctions in vargas? > > > > > > > > > > Regarding varga (division) + uttama (best) = vargottama, M-W > > > > (Monier- > > > > > Williams) dictionary gives the following meanings for uttama: > > > > > > > > > > uppermost, highest, chief, most elevated, principal, best , > > > > > excellent RV. AV. AitBr. Mn. Pan5cat. &c. (often ifc. , e.g. % > > > > > {dvijo7ttama} , best of the twice-born i.e. a Bra1hman Mn.) > > first, > > > > > greatest, the highest (tone) the most removed or last in place > > or > > > > > order or time etc. > > > > > > > > > > best regards > > > > > Hari > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------ > > > > > > > > Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.9.2/373 - Release Date: 6/22/2006 > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 25, 2006 Report Share Posted June 25, 2006 Pradeepji, I will drop the 'ji' if you will drop the same when you address me. Even if I may be older, that is not a good enough reason to use the suffix, 'ji'. In a sense we are all strangers and the 'ji' if used has nothing to do with age but out of politeness when we speak with a stranger or relatively a stranger. About kshetra -- yes that is a better way because then you would be using exactly the term Parashara has used. Unfortunately, if kundali or chakra should only be used with the rashi or kshetra varga (and not with the other vargas) -- if this is what is being stated then nearly all the jyotishis, including Sri Raman, Sri Rao, Sri Rath, Sri Chowdhri, Sri Bepin Behari and nearly every jyotishi, eastern or western, modern of ancient have all been sadly mistaken all their lives because they all used and advocated use of varga chakras etc. I find this a very radical concept (not using vargas as chakras) against that backdrop -- almost comparable to some of the very different values of ayanamsha (as in 10-12 degrees away from Lahiri or Raman). But this is a large tent, I suppose -- afterall zodiacs 23 degrees apart can coexist and be effectively used it seems without nulling out each other. So why not the framework you and your friends are claiming. Peace, RR , "vijayadas_pradeep" <vijayadas_pradeep wrote: > > Dear Rohini ji > > I think i have requested that,you may kindly address me without a > ji.It is more comfortable. > What i have been saying in simple words is the following.Rashi Chakra > is not a varga.But every rashi contains set of vargas.The first varga > is a Rashi of 30 degree span.Inorder to understand this concept > properly,i have been stressing to use the word Kshethra for the first > varga-though Rashi and Kshethra are synonymns. > > Thanks > Pradeep > > , "crystal pages" > <jyotish_vani@> wrote: > > > > Dear Pradeepji, > > Your statement that rashi contains all amshas is astronomically > > correct. What intrigues me, though, and I think this has been voiced > > by me earlier is that Parashara described rashi as one of the vargas > > and not a separate category which then comprises the remaining 15 > > vargas as described in his BPHS. So I would like to think that Sage > > was pointing at some degree of (functional) similarity between Rashi > > and other amshas and not one subsumed by another. > > > > However, in my last email I was not referring to your view about > > varga not being part of a chakra, or kundali (as a snake, if the > > imagery is permitted), but the fact that you connected the > > coincidence of rashi tattwas and amsha tattwas, etc. A similar > > qualitative link arises between the vargottama state which links > > three vargas: rashi, navamsha and drekkana. > > > > RR > > > > , "vijayadas_pradeep" > > <vijayadas_pradeep@> wrote: > > > > > > Dear Rohini ji > > > > > > I always assumed,my mails as clear,and your mail counters my beleif. > > > So it means for the first time i am clear:-). > > > Thanks for making me learn a lesson.Clear examples can drive home > > the > > > points better. > > > > > > Dashadhyayi by Thalakkulathu bhattathiri ,says navamshas are > > > navapranas.Trimshamashas are Chakshuraadi Pancha > > Jnanendriyas.Saintly > > > astrological scholars like Bhattathiri having traditional > > > knowledge,will not write even a word ,which is unauthentic. > > > > > > Thus if we consider rashichakra as a serpent as Chandrashekhar ji > > has > > > mentioned,every amsha is not another serpent.But they are the > > various > > > subtle essences which make the serpent active.Altogether we call > > them > > > Rashi chakra.Kshethra /Navamsha etc points to individual aspects. > > > > > > Shri K.N.Raojis understanding on Karakamsha is conmforming to > > > principles of jyotish is my personal view. > > > > > > If we ask ,whether the monkey is longer or monkeys tail - initially > > we > > > might be confused.But the vaild point -monkeys length is inclusive > > of > > > its tail removes all our confusions. > > > > > > Similarly Rashi chakra is inclsuive of all the amshas. > > > > > > Thanks > > > Pradeep > > > > > > , "crystal pages" > > > <jyotish_vani@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Bravo Pradeep, > > > > > > > > I think you are on to something really significant -- now said in > > > > words -- shabda and vakkyaas! > > > > > > > > Navmasha being the chart view of reality from the tattwic > > (essential) > > > > dimension makes sense! > > > > > > > > So rashi for the physical, navamsha from the essence, the spirit, > > as > > > > the 9th represents, -- kind of like what most of us really > > > > understood, hopefully! > > > > > > > > RR > > > > > > > > , "vijayadas_pradeep" > > > > <vijayadas_pradeep@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Dear Hari Namaste > > > > > > > > > > Take planets Mercury/Mars/Jupiter -placed in the first degree > > of > > > > > Aries,Mars/Sag respectively.They are physically,(OK lets say > > > > > relative/apparent) present within the boundaries of > > > > > Aries/Leo/Sag.Distance between Mars/Mercury is 120 degrees and > > > > > Mars/Jupiter is 240 degrees(Physical seperation).(Apparent need > > not > > > > > be a concern as ,we follow the SAME benchmark(w.r to earth) for > > all > > > > > Rashi Chakra placements). > > > > > > > > > > Now let us take Navamsha.All the three are drawn as conjunct in > > > > > Aries.Do you think it is an apparent conjunction as above?.Then > > > > what > > > > > is navamsha?First 3.2 degrees of any FIRY sign is always > > assigned > > > > to > > > > > Aries.Any planet placed within this degree span will relate to > > > > Aries > > > > > as navamsha.This is a tattwa based sambandha and does not > > represent > > > > > any placement.On the other hand Rashi chakra placement is an > > > > > astronomically measured value,adjusted for ayanamsha > > > > > correction.Distance/Conjunction in Rashi chakra -points towards > > > > > physical seperation/proximity while navamsha points towards > > > > > sambandhas.It has no connection with distance.Hope the > > difference > > > > is > > > > > clear this time. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > |om| > > > > > Dear Pradeep, namaste > > > > > > > > > > M-W dictionary defines conjunction as given below: > > > > > > > > > > con·junc·tion > > > > > Function: noun > > > > > 1 : the act or an instance of conjoining : the state of being > > > > > conjoined : > > > > > 2 : occurrence together in time or space : > > > > > 3 a : the apparent meeting or passing of two or more celestial > > > > > bodies in the same degree of the zodiac b : a configuration in > > > > which > > > > > two celestial bodies have their least apparent separation > > > > > 4 : an uninflected linguistic form that joins together > > sentences, > > > > > clauses, phrases, or words > > > > > 5 : a complex sentence in logic true if and only if each of its > > > > > components is true > > > > > > > > > > Note meaning (3a) above. It says apparent and not PHYSICAL. > > > > > Physically conjunct is a non-reality. Thus when viewed against > > the > > > > > backdrop of the rasi, we say that two planets are conjunct when > > > > they > > > > > appear to be in the same rasi. This is apparent and not true in > > > > > reality. As pointed out earlier, rasi is also imaginary; it has > > no > > > > > physical boundaries in space. > > > > > > > > > > The point I am driving at is that when we say that two planets > > are > > > > > conjunct in a rasi purely on a non-physical basis (apparent), > > what > > > > > is wrong with defining similar conjunctions in vargas? > > > > > > > > > > Regarding varga (division) + uttama (best) = vargottama, M- W > > > > (Monier- > > > > > Williams) dictionary gives the following meanings for uttama: > > > > > > > > > > uppermost, highest, chief, most elevated, principal, best , > > > > > excellent RV. AV. AitBr. Mn. Pan5cat. &c. (often ifc. , e.g. % > > > > > {dvijo7ttama} , best of the twice-born i.e. a Bra1hman Mn.) > > first, > > > > > greatest, the highest (tone) the most removed or last in place > > or > > > > > order or time etc. > > > > > > > > > > best regards > > > > > Hari > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 26, 2006 Report Share Posted June 26, 2006 Dear Rohini ji I think without your permission i can add a ji:-) If we arrange all the first vargas(Kshethras) it is exactly the same as Rashi chakra.Then what is the difference between, Rashi chakra and Kshehtra Sambandhas. When we talk of Kshethra as a varga, it is just one division among numerous divisions.We are not thinking of any other divisions. Example :Classical shlokas on Lagna lord in Kuja kshethra(irrespective of whether it is in Aries or Scorpio)giving similar results.(it is just one point and we have to consider numerous factors before arriving at a conclusion) On the other hand,when we talk of Rashi chakra - It is the complete system with all the sambandhas a planet is having with numerous Rashis,done during Bhava niroopana. Example:Lord of 5th house,Shani has attained Mesha navamsha,is aspected by natural malefic and maraka Kuja,and is in a Kroora shashtyamsha.He is also the lord of 22nd Drekkana and hence capable of bringing maraka results.The navamsha dispositor of shani ,Mars is combust,engaged in a planetary war and is also in a bad avastha.Thus we can say Shani is very weak.To add, Mars a maraka is having amsha in the 5th from lagna,making Putra bhava weak. I have respect for the said astrologers,but those great souls may also explain to us the reson behind their conclusions as there is no Pramana supporting such.It is my personal opinion and you may follow your conscience.If learned souls can give better explanations i am ever prepeared to learn. Can you justify Graha drishti in vargas other then Kshethtra.In rashi we need not take aspect as a property of varga,rather as a function of planetary placements. Thanks Pradeep , "crystal pages" <jyotish_vani wrote: > > Pradeepji, > > I will drop the 'ji' if you will drop the same when you address me. > Even if I may be older, that is not a good enough reason to use the > suffix, 'ji'. In a sense we are all strangers and the 'ji' if used > has nothing to do with age but out of politeness when we speak with a > stranger or relatively a stranger. > > About kshetra -- yes that is a better way because then you would be > using exactly the term Parashara has used. > > Unfortunately, if kundali or chakra should only be used with the > rashi or kshetra varga (and not with the other vargas) -- if this is > what is being stated then nearly all the jyotishis, including Sri > Raman, Sri Rao, Sri Rath, Sri Chowdhri, Sri Bepin Behari and nearly > every jyotishi, eastern or western, modern of ancient have all been > sadly mistaken all their lives because they all used and advocated > use of varga chakras etc. > > I find this a very radical concept (not using vargas as chakras) > against that backdrop -- almost comparable to some of the very > different values of ayanamsha (as in 10-12 degrees away from Lahiri > or Raman). > > But this is a large tent, I suppose -- afterall zodiacs 23 degrees > apart can coexist and be effectively used it seems without nulling > out each other. So why not the framework you and your friends are > claiming. > > Peace, > > RR > > , "vijayadas_pradeep" > vijayadas_pradeep@ wrote: > > > > Dear Rohini ji > > > > I think i have requested that,you may kindly address me without a > > ji.It is more comfortable. > > What i have been saying in simple words is the following.Rashi > Chakra > > is not a varga.But every rashi contains set of vargas.The first > varga > > is a Rashi of 30 degree span.Inorder to understand this concept > > properly,i have been stressing to use the word Kshethra for the > first > > varga-though Rashi and Kshethra are synonymns. > > > > Thanks > > Pradeep > > > > , "crystal pages" > > <jyotish_vani@> wrote: > > > > > > Dear Pradeepji, > > > Your statement that rashi contains all amshas is astronomically > > > correct. What intrigues me, though, and I think this has been > voiced > > > by me earlier is that Parashara described rashi as one of the > vargas > > > and not a separate category which then comprises the remaining 15 > > > vargas as described in his BPHS. So I would like to think that > Sage > > > was pointing at some degree of (functional) similarity between > Rashi > > > and other amshas and not one subsumed by another. > > > > > > However, in my last email I was not referring to your view about > > > varga not being part of a chakra, or kundali (as a snake, if the > > > imagery is permitted), but the fact that you connected the > > > coincidence of rashi tattwas and amsha tattwas, etc. A similar > > > qualitative link arises between the vargottama state which links > > > three vargas: rashi, navamsha and drekkana. > > > > > > RR > > > > > > , "vijayadas_pradeep" > > > <vijayadas_pradeep@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Dear Rohini ji > > > > > > > > I always assumed,my mails as clear,and your mail counters my > beleif. > > > > So it means for the first time i am clear:-). > > > > Thanks for making me learn a lesson.Clear examples can drive > home > > > the > > > > points better. > > > > > > > > Dashadhyayi by Thalakkulathu bhattathiri ,says navamshas are > > > > navapranas.Trimshamashas are Chakshuraadi Pancha > > > Jnanendriyas.Saintly > > > > astrological scholars like Bhattathiri having traditional > > > > knowledge,will not write even a word ,which is unauthentic. > > > > > > > > Thus if we consider rashichakra as a serpent as Chandrashekhar > ji > > > has > > > > mentioned,every amsha is not another serpent.But they are the > > > various > > > > subtle essences which make the serpent active.Altogether we > call > > > them > > > > Rashi chakra.Kshethra /Navamsha etc points to individual > aspects. > > > > > > > > Shri K.N.Raojis understanding on Karakamsha is conmforming to > > > > principles of jyotish is my personal view. > > > > > > > > If we ask ,whether the monkey is longer or monkeys tail - > initially > > > we > > > > might be confused.But the vaild point -monkeys length is > inclusive > > > of > > > > its tail removes all our confusions. > > > > > > > > Similarly Rashi chakra is inclsuive of all the amshas. > > > > > > > > Thanks > > > > Pradeep > > > > > > > > , "crystal pages" > > > > <jyotish_vani@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Bravo Pradeep, > > > > > > > > > > I think you are on to something really significant -- now > said in > > > > > words -- shabda and vakkyaas! > > > > > > > > > > Navmasha being the chart view of reality from the tattwic > > > (essential) > > > > > dimension makes sense! > > > > > > > > > > So rashi for the physical, navamsha from the essence, the > spirit, > > > as > > > > > the 9th represents, -- kind of like what most of us really > > > > > understood, hopefully! > > > > > > > > > > RR > > > > > > > > > > , "vijayadas_pradeep" > > > > > <vijayadas_pradeep@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Hari Namaste > > > > > > > > > > > > Take planets Mercury/Mars/Jupiter -placed in the first > degree > > > of > > > > > > Aries,Mars/Sag respectively.They are physically,(OK lets > say > > > > > > relative/apparent) present within the boundaries of > > > > > > Aries/Leo/Sag.Distance between Mars/Mercury is 120 degrees > and > > > > > > Mars/Jupiter is 240 degrees(Physical seperation).(Apparent > need > > > not > > > > > > be a concern as ,we follow the SAME benchmark(w.r to earth) > for > > > all > > > > > > Rashi Chakra placements). > > > > > > > > > > > > Now let us take Navamsha.All the three are drawn as > conjunct in > > > > > > Aries.Do you think it is an apparent conjunction as > above?.Then > > > > > what > > > > > > is navamsha?First 3.2 degrees of any FIRY sign is always > > > assigned > > > > > to > > > > > > Aries.Any planet placed within this degree span will relate > to > > > > > Aries > > > > > > as navamsha.This is a tattwa based sambandha and does not > > > represent > > > > > > any placement.On the other hand Rashi chakra placement is > an > > > > > > astronomically measured value,adjusted for ayanamsha > > > > > > correction.Distance/Conjunction in Rashi chakra -points > towards > > > > > > physical seperation/proximity while navamsha points towards > > > > > > sambandhas.It has no connection with distance.Hope the > > > difference > > > > > is > > > > > > clear this time. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > |om| > > > > > > Dear Pradeep, namaste > > > > > > > > > > > > M-W dictionary defines conjunction as given below: > > > > > > > > > > > > con·junc·tion > > > > > > Function: noun > > > > > > 1 : the act or an instance of conjoining : the state of > being > > > > > > conjoined : > > > > > > 2 : occurrence together in time or space : > > > > > > 3 a : the apparent meeting or passing of two or more > celestial > > > > > > bodies in the same degree of the zodiac b : a configuration > in > > > > > which > > > > > > two celestial bodies have their least apparent separation > > > > > > 4 : an uninflected linguistic form that joins together > > > sentences, > > > > > > clauses, phrases, or words > > > > > > 5 : a complex sentence in logic true if and only if each of > its > > > > > > components is true > > > > > > > > > > > > Note meaning (3a) above. It says apparent and not PHYSICAL. > > > > > > Physically conjunct is a non-reality. Thus when viewed > against > > > the > > > > > > backdrop of the rasi, we say that two planets are conjunct > when > > > > > they > > > > > > appear to be in the same rasi. This is apparent and not > true in > > > > > > reality. As pointed out earlier, rasi is also imaginary; it > has > > > no > > > > > > physical boundaries in space. > > > > > > > > > > > > The point I am driving at is that when we say that two > planets > > > are > > > > > > conjunct in a rasi purely on a non-physical basis > (apparent), > > > what > > > > > > is wrong with defining similar conjunctions in vargas? > > > > > > > > > > > > Regarding varga (division) + uttama (best) = vargottama, M- > W > > > > > (Monier- > > > > > > Williams) dictionary gives the following meanings for > uttama: > > > > > > > > > > > > uppermost, highest, chief, most elevated, principal, best , > > > > > > excellent RV. AV. AitBr. Mn. Pan5cat. &c. (often ifc. , > e.g. % > > > > > > {dvijo7ttama} , best of the twice-born i.e. a Bra1hman Mn.) > > > first, > > > > > > greatest, the highest (tone) the most removed or last in > place > > > or > > > > > > order or time etc. > > > > > > > > > > > > best regards > > > > > > Hari > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 26, 2006 Report Share Posted June 26, 2006 Dear Pradeep, In essence, what you say is right. I just put it with the relevant shlokas. Chandrashekhar. vijayadas_pradeep wrote: > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji > > My understanding is the following.By definition Rashi chakara is not a > varga,but every rashi(30 degree span) is a varga.It also contains > other vargas.This is exactly what you have said.The first varga is one > rashi itself -another name being Kshethra. > Rashi chakra on the other hand is the sum total of all these.Kindly > correct if you have different views. > > Respect > Pradeep > > <%40>, Chandrashekhar > <chandrashekhar46 wrote: > > > > Dear Rohini, > > Shloka 1 of Shodashavargaadhya makes it clear the Maitreya asks about > > divisions within Bhavas. The subsequent shlokas tells all the 16 > > divisions including the Rasi/bhava. If I am not mistaken one of the > > meaning of Varga, besides the commonly understood division, is a set. > > Hence Rasi representing a set containing other 15 Vargas could also be > > called Varga. > > > > Chandrashekhar. > > > > crystal pages wrote: > > > > > > Dear Pradeepji, > > > Your statement that rashi contains all amshas is astronomically > > > correct. What intrigues me, though, and I think this has been voiced > > > by me earlier is that Parashara described rashi as one of the vargas > > > and not a separate category which then comprises the remaining 15 > > > vargas as described in his BPHS. So I would like to think that Sage > > > was pointing at some degree of (functional) similarity between Rashi > > > and other amshas and not one subsumed by another. > > > > > > However, in my last email I was not referring to your view about > > > varga not being part of a chakra, or kundali (as a snake, if the > > > imagery is permitted), but the fact that you connected the > > > coincidence of rashi tattwas and amsha tattwas, etc. A similar > > > qualitative link arises between the vargottama state which links > > > three vargas: rashi, navamsha and drekkana. > > > > > > RR > > > > > > > <%40> > > > <%40>, "vijayadas_pradeep" > > > <vijayadas_pradeep@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Dear Rohini ji > > > > > > > > I always assumed,my mails as clear,and your mail counters my beleif.. > > > > So it means for the first time i am clear:-). > > > > Thanks for making me learn a lesson.Clear examples can drive home > > > the > > > > points better. > > > > > > > > Dashadhyayi by Thalakkulathu bhattathiri ,says navamshas are > > > > navapranas.Trimshamashas are Chakshuraadi Pancha > > > Jnanendriyas.Saintly > > > > astrological scholars like Bhattathiri having traditional > > > > knowledge,will not write even a word ,which is unauthentic. > > > > > > > > Thus if we consider rashichakra as a serpent as Chandrashekhar ji > > > has > > > > mentioned,every amsha is not another serpent.But they are the > > > various > > > > subtle essences which make the serpent active.Altogether we call > > > them > > > > Rashi chakra.Kshethra /Navamsha etc points to individual aspects. > > > > > > > > Shri K.N.Raojis understanding on Karakamsha is conmforming to > > > > principles of jyotish is my personal view. > > > > > > > > If we ask ,whether the monkey is longer or monkeys tail - initially > > > we > > > > might be confused.But the vaild point -monkeys length is inclusive > > > of > > > > its tail removes all our confusions. > > > > > > > > Similarly Rashi chakra is inclsuive of all the amshas. > > > > > > > > Thanks > > > > Pradeep > > > > > > > > > <%40> > > > <%40>, "crystal pages" > > > > <jyotish_vani@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Bravo Pradeep, > > > > > > > > > > I think you are on to something really significant -- now said in > > > > > words -- shabda and vakkyaas! > > > > > > > > > > Navmasha being the chart view of reality from the tattwic > > > (essential) > > > > > dimension makes sense! > > > > > > > > > > So rashi for the physical, navamsha from the essence, the spirit, > > > as > > > > > the 9th represents, -- kind of like what most of us really > > > > > understood, hopefully! > > > > > > > > > > RR > > > > > > > > > > > <%40> > > > <%40>, "vijayadas_pradeep" > > > > > <vijayadas_pradeep@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Hari Namaste > > > > > > > > > > > > Take planets Mercury/Mars/Jupiter -placed in the first degree > > > of > > > > > > Aries,Mars/Sag respectively.They are physically,(OK lets say > > > > > > relative/apparent) present within the boundaries of > > > > > > Aries/Leo/Sag.Distance between Mars/Mercury is 120 degrees and > > > > > > Mars/Jupiter is 240 degrees(Physical seperation).(Apparent need > > > not > > > > > > be a concern as ,we follow the SAME benchmark(w.r to earth) for > > > all > > > > > > Rashi Chakra placements). > > > > > > > > > > > > Now let us take Navamsha.All the three are drawn as conjunct in > > > > > > Aries.Do you think it is an apparent conjunction as above?.Then > > > > > what > > > > > > is navamsha?First 3.2 degrees of any FIRY sign is always > > > assigned > > > > > to > > > > > > Aries.Any planet placed within this degree span will relate to > > > > > Aries > > > > > > as navamsha.This is a tattwa based sambandha and does not > > > represent > > > > > > any placement.On the other hand Rashi chakra placement is an > > > > > > astronomically measured value,adjusted for ayanamsha > > > > > > correction.Distance/Conjunction in Rashi chakra -points towards > > > > > > physical seperation/proximity while navamsha points towards > > > > > > sambandhas.It has no connection with distance.Hope the > > > difference > > > > > is > > > > > > clear this time. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > |om| > > > > > > Dear Pradeep, namaste > > > > > > > > > > > > M-W dictionary defines conjunction as given below: > > > > > > > > > > > > con·junc·tion > > > > > > Function: noun > > > > > > 1 : the act or an instance of conjoining : the state of being > > > > > > conjoined : > > > > > > 2 : occurrence together in time or space : > > > > > > 3 a : the apparent meeting or passing of two or more celestial > > > > > > bodies in the same degree of the zodiac b : a configuration in > > > > > which > > > > > > two celestial bodies have their least apparent separation > > > > > > 4 : an uninflected linguistic form that joins together > > > sentences, > > > > > > clauses, phrases, or words > > > > > > 5 : a complex sentence in logic true if and only if each of its > > > > > > components is true > > > > > > > > > > > > Note meaning (3a) above. It says apparent and not PHYSICAL. > > > > > > Physically conjunct is a non-reality. Thus when viewed against > > > the > > > > > > backdrop of the rasi, we say that two planets are conjunct when > > > > > they > > > > > > appear to be in the same rasi. This is apparent and not true in > > > > > > reality. As pointed out earlier, rasi is also imaginary; it has > > > no > > > > > > physical boundaries in space. > > > > > > > > > > > > The point I am driving at is that when we say that two planets > > > are > > > > > > conjunct in a rasi purely on a non-physical basis (apparent), > > > what > > > > > > is wrong with defining similar conjunctions in vargas? > > > > > > > > > > > > Regarding varga (division) + uttama (best) = vargottama, M-W > > > > > (Monier- > > > > > > Williams) dictionary gives the following meanings for uttama: > > > > > > > > > > > > uppermost, highest, chief, most elevated, principal, best , > > > > > > excellent RV. AV. AitBr. Mn. Pan5cat. &c. (often ifc. , e.g. % > > > > > > {dvijo7ttama} , best of the twice-born i.e. a Bra1hman Mn.) > > > first, > > > > > > greatest, the highest (tone) the most removed or last in place > > > or > > > > > > order or time etc. > > > > > > > > > > > > best regards > > > > > > Hari > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------- > > > > > > > > > > > > Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.9.2/373 - Release Date: > 6/22/2006 > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 26, 2006 Report Share Posted June 26, 2006 Dear Pradeep ji, regarding griha drishtis -- do you consider mars in the first degree of simha capable of aspecting (in the vedic sense of the term) a planet that is in the 29th degree of scorpio, or kumbha or meena? RR , "vijayadas_pradeep" <vijayadas_pradeep wrote: > > > Dear Rohini ji > > I think without your permission i can add a ji:-) > > If we arrange all the first vargas(Kshethras) it is exactly the same as > Rashi chakra.Then what is the difference between, Rashi chakra and > Kshehtra Sambandhas. > > > When we talk of Kshethra as a varga, it is just one division among > numerous divisions.We are not thinking of any other divisions. > > Example :Classical shlokas on Lagna lord in Kuja kshethra (irrespective > of whether it is in Aries or Scorpio)giving similar results.(it is just > one point and we have to consider numerous factors before arriving at a > conclusion) > > On the other hand,when we talk of Rashi chakra - It is the complete > system with all the sambandhas a planet is having with numerous > Rashis,done during Bhava niroopana. > > Example:Lord of 5th house,Shani has attained Mesha navamsha,is aspected > by natural malefic and maraka Kuja,and is in a Kroora shashtyamsha.He is > also the lord of 22nd Drekkana and hence capable of bringing maraka > results.The navamsha dispositor of shani ,Mars is combust,engaged in a > planetary war and is also in a bad avastha.Thus we can say Shani is very > weak.To add, Mars a maraka is having amsha in the 5th from lagna,making > Putra bhava weak. > > I have respect for the said astrologers,but those great souls may also > explain to us the reson behind their conclusions as there is no Pramana > supporting such.It is my personal opinion and you may follow your > conscience.If learned souls can give better explanations i am ever > prepeared to learn. > > Can you justify Graha drishti in vargas other then Kshethtra.In rashi we > need not take aspect as a property of varga,rather as a function of > planetary placements. > > > Thanks > Pradeep > > , "crystal pages" <jyotish_vani@> > wrote: > > > > Pradeepji, > > > > I will drop the 'ji' if you will drop the same when you address me. > > Even if I may be older, that is not a good enough reason to use the > > suffix, 'ji'. In a sense we are all strangers and the 'ji' if used > > has nothing to do with age but out of politeness when we speak with a > > stranger or relatively a stranger. > > > > About kshetra -- yes that is a better way because then you would be > > using exactly the term Parashara has used. > > > > Unfortunately, if kundali or chakra should only be used with the > > rashi or kshetra varga (and not with the other vargas) -- if this is > > what is being stated then nearly all the jyotishis, including Sri > > Raman, Sri Rao, Sri Rath, Sri Chowdhri, Sri Bepin Behari and nearly > > every jyotishi, eastern or western, modern of ancient have all been > > sadly mistaken all their lives because they all used and advocated > > use of varga chakras etc. > > > > I find this a very radical concept (not using vargas as chakras) > > against that backdrop -- almost comparable to some of the very > > different values of ayanamsha (as in 10-12 degrees away from Lahiri > > or Raman). > > > > But this is a large tent, I suppose -- afterall zodiacs 23 degrees > > apart can coexist and be effectively used it seems without nulling > > out each other. So why not the framework you and your friends are > > claiming. > > > > Peace, > > > > RR > > > > , "vijayadas_pradeep" > > vijayadas_pradeep@ wrote: > > > > > > Dear Rohini ji > > > > > > I think i have requested that,you may kindly address me without a > > > ji.It is more comfortable. > > > What i have been saying in simple words is the following.Rashi > > Chakra > > > is not a varga.But every rashi contains set of vargas.The first > > varga > > > is a Rashi of 30 degree span.Inorder to understand this concept > > > properly,i have been stressing to use the word Kshethra for the > > first > > > varga-though Rashi and Kshethra are synonymns. > > > > > > Thanks > > > Pradeep > > > > > > , "crystal pages" > > > <jyotish_vani@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Dear Pradeepji, > > > > Your statement that rashi contains all amshas is astronomically > > > > correct. What intrigues me, though, and I think this has been > > voiced > > > > by me earlier is that Parashara described rashi as one of the > > vargas > > > > and not a separate category which then comprises the remaining 15 > > > > vargas as described in his BPHS. So I would like to think that > > Sage > > > > was pointing at some degree of (functional) similarity between > > Rashi > > > > and other amshas and not one subsumed by another. > > > > > > > > However, in my last email I was not referring to your view about > > > > varga not being part of a chakra, or kundali (as a snake, if the > > > > imagery is permitted), but the fact that you connected the > > > > coincidence of rashi tattwas and amsha tattwas, etc. A similar > > > > qualitative link arises between the vargottama state which links > > > > three vargas: rashi, navamsha and drekkana. > > > > > > > > RR > > > > > > > > , "vijayadas_pradeep" > > > > <vijayadas_pradeep@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Dear Rohini ji > > > > > > > > > > I always assumed,my mails as clear,and your mail counters my > > beleif. > > > > > So it means for the first time i am clear:-). > > > > > Thanks for making me learn a lesson.Clear examples can drive > > home > > > > the > > > > > points better. > > > > > > > > > > Dashadhyayi by Thalakkulathu bhattathiri ,says navamshas are > > > > > navapranas.Trimshamashas are Chakshuraadi Pancha > > > > Jnanendriyas.Saintly > > > > > astrological scholars like Bhattathiri having traditional > > > > > knowledge,will not write even a word ,which is unauthentic. > > > > > > > > > > Thus if we consider rashichakra as a serpent as Chandrashekhar > > ji > > > > has > > > > > mentioned,every amsha is not another serpent.But they are the > > > > various > > > > > subtle essences which make the serpent active.Altogether we > > call > > > > them > > > > > Rashi chakra.Kshethra /Navamsha etc points to individual > > aspects. > > > > > > > > > > Shri K.N.Raojis understanding on Karakamsha is conmforming to > > > > > principles of jyotish is my personal view. > > > > > > > > > > If we ask ,whether the monkey is longer or monkeys tail - > > initially > > > > we > > > > > might be confused.But the vaild point -monkeys length is > > inclusive > > > > of > > > > > its tail removes all our confusions. > > > > > > > > > > Similarly Rashi chakra is inclsuive of all the amshas. > > > > > > > > > > Thanks > > > > > Pradeep > > > > > > > > > > , "crystal pages" > > > > > <jyotish_vani@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Bravo Pradeep, > > > > > > > > > > > > I think you are on to something really significant -- now > > said in > > > > > > words -- shabda and vakkyaas! > > > > > > > > > > > > Navmasha being the chart view of reality from the tattwic > > > > (essential) > > > > > > dimension makes sense! > > > > > > > > > > > > So rashi for the physical, navamsha from the essence, the > > spirit, > > > > as > > > > > > the 9th represents, -- kind of like what most of us really > > > > > > understood, hopefully! > > > > > > > > > > > > RR > > > > > > > > > > > > , "vijayadas_pradeep" > > > > > > <vijayadas_pradeep@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Hari Namaste > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Take planets Mercury/Mars/Jupiter -placed in the first > > degree > > > > of > > > > > > > Aries,Mars/Sag respectively.They are physically,(OK lets > > say > > > > > > > relative/apparent) present within the boundaries of > > > > > > > Aries/Leo/Sag.Distance between Mars/Mercury is 120 degrees > > and > > > > > > > Mars/Jupiter is 240 degrees(Physical seperation). (Apparent > > need > > > > not > > > > > > > be a concern as ,we follow the SAME benchmark(w.r to earth) > > for > > > > all > > > > > > > Rashi Chakra placements). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Now let us take Navamsha.All the three are drawn as > > conjunct in > > > > > > > Aries.Do you think it is an apparent conjunction as > > above?.Then > > > > > > what > > > > > > > is navamsha?First 3.2 degrees of any FIRY sign is always > > > > assigned > > > > > > to > > > > > > > Aries.Any planet placed within this degree span will relate > > to > > > > > > Aries > > > > > > > as navamsha.This is a tattwa based sambandha and does not > > > > represent > > > > > > > any placement.On the other hand Rashi chakra placement is > > an > > > > > > > astronomically measured value,adjusted for ayanamsha > > > > > > > correction.Distance/Conjunction in Rashi chakra -points > > towards > > > > > > > physical seperation/proximity while navamsha points towards > > > > > > > sambandhas.It has no connection with distance.Hope the > > > > difference > > > > > > is > > > > > > > clear this time. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > |om| > > > > > > > Dear Pradeep, namaste > > > > > > > > > > > > > > M-W dictionary defines conjunction as given below: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > con·junc·tion > > > > > > > Function: noun > > > > > > > 1 : the act or an instance of conjoining : the state of > > being > > > > > > > conjoined : > > > > > > > 2 : occurrence together in time or space : > > > > > > > 3 a : the apparent meeting or passing of two or more > > celestial > > > > > > > bodies in the same degree of the zodiac b : a configuration > > in > > > > > > which > > > > > > > two celestial bodies have their least apparent separation > > > > > > > 4 : an uninflected linguistic form that joins together > > > > sentences, > > > > > > > clauses, phrases, or words > > > > > > > 5 : a complex sentence in logic true if and only if each of > > its > > > > > > > components is true > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Note meaning (3a) above. It says apparent and not PHYSICAL. > > > > > > > Physically conjunct is a non-reality. Thus when viewed > > against > > > > the > > > > > > > backdrop of the rasi, we say that two planets are conjunct > > when > > > > > > they > > > > > > > appear to be in the same rasi. This is apparent and not > > true in > > > > > > > reality. As pointed out earlier, rasi is also imaginary; it > > has > > > > no > > > > > > > physical boundaries in space. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The point I am driving at is that when we say that two > > planets > > > > are > > > > > > > conjunct in a rasi purely on a non-physical basis > > (apparent), > > > > what > > > > > > > is wrong with defining similar conjunctions in vargas? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Regarding varga (division) + uttama (best) = vargottama, M- > > W > > > > > > (Monier- > > > > > > > Williams) dictionary gives the following meanings for > > uttama: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > uppermost, highest, chief, most elevated, principal, best , > > > > > > > excellent RV. AV. AitBr. Mn. Pan5cat. &c. (often ifc. , > > e.g. % > > > > > > > {dvijo7ttama} , best of the twice-born i.e. a Bra1hman Mn.) > > > > first, > > > > > > > greatest, the highest (tone) the most removed or last in > > place > > > > or > > > > > > > order or time etc. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > best regards > > > > > > > Hari > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 27, 2006 Report Share Posted June 27, 2006 Dear Chandrashekhar ji Thanks for sharing your understanding,helping me to gather a bit of fundamentals from the ocean of jyotish. Respect Pradeep , Chandrashekhar <chandrashekhar46 wrote: > > Dear Pradeep, > > In essence, what you say is right. I just put it with the relevant shlokas. > > Chandrashekhar. > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote: > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji > > > > My understanding is the following.By definition Rashi chakara is not a > > varga,but every rashi(30 degree span) is a varga.It also contains > > other vargas.This is exactly what you have said.The first varga is one > > rashi itself -another name being Kshethra. > > Rashi chakra on the other hand is the sum total of all these.Kindly > > correct if you have different views. > > > > Respect > > Pradeep > > > > <%40>, Chandrashekhar > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote: > > > > > > Dear Rohini, > > > Shloka 1 of Shodashavargaadhya makes it clear the Maitreya asks about > > > divisions within Bhavas. The subsequent shlokas tells all the 16 > > > divisions including the Rasi/bhava. If I am not mistaken one of the > > > meaning of Varga, besides the commonly understood division, is a set. > > > Hence Rasi representing a set containing other 15 Vargas could also be > > > called Varga. > > > > > > Chandrashekhar. > > > > > > crystal pages wrote: > > > > > > > > Dear Pradeepji, > > > > Your statement that rashi contains all amshas is astronomically > > > > correct. What intrigues me, though, and I think this has been voiced > > > > by me earlier is that Parashara described rashi as one of the vargas > > > > and not a separate category which then comprises the remaining 15 > > > > vargas as described in his BPHS. So I would like to think that Sage > > > > was pointing at some degree of (functional) similarity between Rashi > > > > and other amshas and not one subsumed by another. > > > > > > > > However, in my last email I was not referring to your view about > > > > varga not being part of a chakra, or kundali (as a snake, if the > > > > imagery is permitted), but the fact that you connected the > > > > coincidence of rashi tattwas and amsha tattwas, etc. A similar > > > > qualitative link arises between the vargottama state which links > > > > three vargas: rashi, navamsha and drekkana. > > > > > > > > RR > > > > > > > > > > <%40> > > > > <%40>, "vijayadas_pradeep" > > > > <vijayadas_pradeep@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Dear Rohini ji > > > > > > > > > > I always assumed,my mails as clear,and your mail counters my beleif. > > > > > So it means for the first time i am clear:-). > > > > > Thanks for making me learn a lesson.Clear examples can drive home > > > > the > > > > > points better. > > > > > > > > > > Dashadhyayi by Thalakkulathu bhattathiri ,says navamshas are > > > > > navapranas.Trimshamashas are Chakshuraadi Pancha > > > > Jnanendriyas.Saintly > > > > > astrological scholars like Bhattathiri having traditional > > > > > knowledge,will not write even a word ,which is unauthentic. > > > > > > > > > > Thus if we consider rashichakra as a serpent as Chandrashekhar ji > > > > has > > > > > mentioned,every amsha is not another serpent.But they are the > > > > various > > > > > subtle essences which make the serpent active.Altogether we call > > > > them > > > > > Rashi chakra.Kshethra /Navamsha etc points to individual aspects. > > > > > > > > > > Shri K.N.Raojis understanding on Karakamsha is conmforming to > > > > > principles of jyotish is my personal view. > > > > > > > > > > If we ask ,whether the monkey is longer or monkeys tail - initially > > > > we > > > > > might be confused.But the vaild point -monkeys length is inclusive > > > > of > > > > > its tail removes all our confusions. > > > > > > > > > > Similarly Rashi chakra is inclsuive of all the amshas. > > > > > > > > > > Thanks > > > > > Pradeep > > > > > > > > > > > > <%40> > > > > <%40>, "crystal pages" > > > > > <jyotish_vani@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Bravo Pradeep, > > > > > > > > > > > > I think you are on to something really significant -- now said in > > > > > > words -- shabda and vakkyaas! > > > > > > > > > > > > Navmasha being the chart view of reality from the tattwic > > > > (essential) > > > > > > dimension makes sense! > > > > > > > > > > > > So rashi for the physical, navamsha from the essence, the spirit, > > > > as > > > > > > the 9th represents, -- kind of like what most of us really > > > > > > understood, hopefully! > > > > > > > > > > > > RR > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <%40> > > > > <%40>, "vijayadas_pradeep" > > > > > > <vijayadas_pradeep@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Hari Namaste > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Take planets Mercury/Mars/Jupiter -placed in the first degree > > > > of > > > > > > > Aries,Mars/Sag respectively.They are physically,(OK lets say > > > > > > > relative/apparent) present within the boundaries of > > > > > > > Aries/Leo/Sag.Distance between Mars/Mercury is 120 degrees and > > > > > > > Mars/Jupiter is 240 degrees(Physical seperation). (Apparent need > > > > not > > > > > > > be a concern as ,we follow the SAME benchmark(w.r to earth) for > > > > all > > > > > > > Rashi Chakra placements). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Now let us take Navamsha.All the three are drawn as conjunct in > > > > > > > Aries.Do you think it is an apparent conjunction as above?.Then > > > > > > what > > > > > > > is navamsha?First 3.2 degrees of any FIRY sign is always > > > > assigned > > > > > > to > > > > > > > Aries.Any planet placed within this degree span will relate to > > > > > > Aries > > > > > > > as navamsha.This is a tattwa based sambandha and does not > > > > represent > > > > > > > any placement.On the other hand Rashi chakra placement is an > > > > > > > astronomically measured value,adjusted for ayanamsha > > > > > > > correction.Distance/Conjunction in Rashi chakra - points towards > > > > > > > physical seperation/proximity while navamsha points towards > > > > > > > sambandhas.It has no connection with distance.Hope the > > > > difference > > > > > > is > > > > > > > clear this time. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > |om| > > > > > > > Dear Pradeep, namaste > > > > > > > > > > > > > > M-W dictionary defines conjunction as given below: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > con·junc·tion > > > > > > > Function: noun > > > > > > > 1 : the act or an instance of conjoining : the state of being > > > > > > > conjoined : > > > > > > > 2 : occurrence together in time or space : > > > > > > > 3 a : the apparent meeting or passing of two or more celestial > > > > > > > bodies in the same degree of the zodiac b : a configuration in > > > > > > which > > > > > > > two celestial bodies have their least apparent separation > > > > > > > 4 : an uninflected linguistic form that joins together > > > > sentences, > > > > > > > clauses, phrases, or words > > > > > > > 5 : a complex sentence in logic true if and only if each of its > > > > > > > components is true > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Note meaning (3a) above. It says apparent and not PHYSICAL. > > > > > > > Physically conjunct is a non-reality. Thus when viewed against > > > > the > > > > > > > backdrop of the rasi, we say that two planets are conjunct when > > > > > > they > > > > > > > appear to be in the same rasi. This is apparent and not true in > > > > > > > reality. As pointed out earlier, rasi is also imaginary; it has > > > > no > > > > > > > physical boundaries in space. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The point I am driving at is that when we say that two planets > > > > are > > > > > > > conjunct in a rasi purely on a non-physical basis (apparent), > > > > what > > > > > > > is wrong with defining similar conjunctions in vargas? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Regarding varga (division) + uttama (best) = vargottama, M-W > > > > > > (Monier- > > > > > > > Williams) dictionary gives the following meanings for uttama: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > uppermost, highest, chief, most elevated, principal, best , > > > > > > > excellent RV. AV. AitBr. Mn. Pan5cat. &c. (often ifc. , e.g. % > > > > > > > {dvijo7ttama} , best of the twice-born i.e. a Bra1hman Mn.) > > > > first, > > > > > > > greatest, the highest (tone) the most removed or last in place > > > > or > > > > > > > order or time etc. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > best regards > > > > > > > Hari > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.9.2/373 - Release Date: > > 6/22/2006 > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 27, 2006 Report Share Posted June 27, 2006 Dear Rohini ji Your question is slightly different,though not irrelevant, from our original discussion.Our original discussion is about a planet's inability to ORIGINATE aspect,from a place WHERE IT IS HAVING SAMBANDHA.Your question is about a planets ability to originate and cast aspect FROM ITS POSITION.Block letters are used for highlighting the difference. Now coming to your question - As per vedic astrology,Mars can cast full aspects on the 4th,7th and 8th places,from itself.Concept called Drishti Kendra - ie the point where a planet can have maximum infleuence,will help us in understanding your example.I feel Mars can have its drishti kendras at similar degrees on bhavas,4th, 7th and 8th from its natal degree.Thus at first degree of Vrischika,Kumbha & Meena,Mars will have maximum influence. Thus Mars can aspect these points(29th degree) as they are still within 4th,7th and 8th bhavas from Mars.But at 29th degree,the impact will be of a lesser degree. Request learned members to correct me. Thanks Pradeep , "crystal pages" <jyotish_vani wrote: > > Dear Pradeep ji, > > regarding griha drishtis -- > do you consider mars in the first degree of simha capable of > aspecting (in the vedic sense of the term) a planet that is in the > 29th degree of scorpio, or kumbha or meena? > > RR > > , "vijayadas_pradeep" > vijayadas_pradeep@ wrote: > > > > > > Dear Rohini ji > > > > I think without your permission i can add a ji:-) > > > > If we arrange all the first vargas(Kshethras) it is exactly the > same as > > Rashi chakra.Then what is the difference between, Rashi chakra and > > Kshehtra Sambandhas. > > > > > > When we talk of Kshethra as a varga, it is just one division among > > numerous divisions.We are not thinking of any other divisions. > > > > Example :Classical shlokas on Lagna lord in Kuja kshethra > (irrespective > > of whether it is in Aries or Scorpio)giving similar results.(it is > just > > one point and we have to consider numerous factors before arriving > at a > > conclusion) > > > > On the other hand,when we talk of Rashi chakra - It is the complete > > system with all the sambandhas a planet is having with numerous > > Rashis,done during Bhava niroopana. > > > > Example:Lord of 5th house,Shani has attained Mesha navamsha,is > aspected > > by natural malefic and maraka Kuja,and is in a Kroora > shashtyamsha.He is > > also the lord of 22nd Drekkana and hence capable of bringing maraka > > results.The navamsha dispositor of shani ,Mars is combust,engaged > in a > > planetary war and is also in a bad avastha.Thus we can say Shani is > very > > weak.To add, Mars a maraka is having amsha in the 5th from > lagna,making > > Putra bhava weak. > > > > I have respect for the said astrologers,but those great souls may > also > > explain to us the reson behind their conclusions as there is no > Pramana > > supporting such.It is my personal opinion and you may follow your > > conscience.If learned souls can give better explanations i am ever > > prepeared to learn. > > > > Can you justify Graha drishti in vargas other then Kshethtra.In > rashi we > > need not take aspect as a property of varga,rather as a function of > > planetary placements. > > > > > > Thanks > > Pradeep > > > > , "crystal pages" <jyotish_vani@> > > wrote: > > > > > > Pradeepji, > > > > > > I will drop the 'ji' if you will drop the same when you address > me. > > > Even if I may be older, that is not a good enough reason to use > the > > > suffix, 'ji'. In a sense we are all strangers and the 'ji' if used > > > has nothing to do with age but out of politeness when we speak > with a > > > stranger or relatively a stranger. > > > > > > About kshetra -- yes that is a better way because then you would > be > > > using exactly the term Parashara has used. > > > > > > Unfortunately, if kundali or chakra should only be used with the > > > rashi or kshetra varga (and not with the other vargas) -- if this > is > > > what is being stated then nearly all the jyotishis, including Sri > > > Raman, Sri Rao, Sri Rath, Sri Chowdhri, Sri Bepin Behari and > nearly > > > every jyotishi, eastern or western, modern of ancient have all > been > > > sadly mistaken all their lives because they all used and advocated > > > use of varga chakras etc. > > > > > > I find this a very radical concept (not using vargas as chakras) > > > against that backdrop -- almost comparable to some of the very > > > different values of ayanamsha (as in 10-12 degrees away from > Lahiri > > > or Raman). > > > > > > But this is a large tent, I suppose -- afterall zodiacs 23 degrees > > > apart can coexist and be effectively used it seems without nulling > > > out each other. So why not the framework you and your friends are > > > claiming. > > > > > > Peace, > > > > > > RR > > > > > > , "vijayadas_pradeep" > > > vijayadas_pradeep@ wrote: > > > > > > > > Dear Rohini ji > > > > > > > > I think i have requested that,you may kindly address me without > a > > > > ji.It is more comfortable. > > > > What i have been saying in simple words is the following.Rashi > > > Chakra > > > > is not a varga.But every rashi contains set of vargas.The first > > > varga > > > > is a Rashi of 30 degree span.Inorder to understand this concept > > > > properly,i have been stressing to use the word Kshethra for the > > > first > > > > varga-though Rashi and Kshethra are synonymns. > > > > > > > > Thanks > > > > Pradeep > > > > > > > > , "crystal pages" > > > > <jyotish_vani@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Dear Pradeepji, > > > > > Your statement that rashi contains all amshas is > astronomically > > > > > correct. What intrigues me, though, and I think this has been > > > voiced > > > > > by me earlier is that Parashara described rashi as one of the > > > vargas > > > > > and not a separate category which then comprises the > remaining 15 > > > > > vargas as described in his BPHS. So I would like to think that > > > Sage > > > > > was pointing at some degree of (functional) similarity between > > > Rashi > > > > > and other amshas and not one subsumed by another. > > > > > > > > > > However, in my last email I was not referring to your view > about > > > > > varga not being part of a chakra, or kundali (as a snake, if > the > > > > > imagery is permitted), but the fact that you connected the > > > > > coincidence of rashi tattwas and amsha tattwas, etc. A similar > > > > > qualitative link arises between the vargottama state which > links > > > > > three vargas: rashi, navamsha and drekkana. > > > > > > > > > > RR > > > > > > > > > > , "vijayadas_pradeep" > > > > > <vijayadas_pradeep@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Rohini ji > > > > > > > > > > > > I always assumed,my mails as clear,and your mail counters my > > > beleif. > > > > > > So it means for the first time i am clear:-). > > > > > > Thanks for making me learn a lesson.Clear examples can drive > > > home > > > > > the > > > > > > points better. > > > > > > > > > > > > Dashadhyayi by Thalakkulathu bhattathiri ,says navamshas are > > > > > > navapranas.Trimshamashas are Chakshuraadi Pancha > > > > > Jnanendriyas.Saintly > > > > > > astrological scholars like Bhattathiri having traditional > > > > > > knowledge,will not write even a word ,which is unauthentic. > > > > > > > > > > > > Thus if we consider rashichakra as a serpent as > Chandrashekhar > > > ji > > > > > has > > > > > > mentioned,every amsha is not another serpent.But they are > the > > > > > various > > > > > > subtle essences which make the serpent active.Altogether we > > > call > > > > > them > > > > > > Rashi chakra.Kshethra /Navamsha etc points to individual > > > aspects. > > > > > > > > > > > > Shri K.N.Raojis understanding on Karakamsha is conmforming > to > > > > > > principles of jyotish is my personal view. > > > > > > > > > > > > If we ask ,whether the monkey is longer or monkeys tail - > > > initially > > > > > we > > > > > > might be confused.But the vaild point -monkeys length is > > > inclusive > > > > > of > > > > > > its tail removes all our confusions. > > > > > > > > > > > > Similarly Rashi chakra is inclsuive of all the amshas. > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks > > > > > > Pradeep > > > > > > > > > > > > , "crystal pages" > > > > > > <jyotish_vani@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bravo Pradeep, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think you are on to something really significant -- now > > > said in > > > > > > > words -- shabda and vakkyaas! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Navmasha being the chart view of reality from the tattwic > > > > > (essential) > > > > > > > dimension makes sense! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So rashi for the physical, navamsha from the essence, the > > > spirit, > > > > > as > > > > > > > the 9th represents, -- kind of like what most of us really > > > > > > > understood, hopefully! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > RR > > > > > > > > > > > > > > , "vijayadas_pradeep" > > > > > > > <vijayadas_pradeep@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Hari Namaste > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Take planets Mercury/Mars/Jupiter -placed in the first > > > degree > > > > > of > > > > > > > > Aries,Mars/Sag respectively.They are physically,(OK lets > > > say > > > > > > > > relative/apparent) present within the boundaries of > > > > > > > > Aries/Leo/Sag.Distance between Mars/Mercury is 120 > degrees > > > and > > > > > > > > Mars/Jupiter is 240 degrees(Physical seperation). > (Apparent > > > need > > > > > not > > > > > > > > be a concern as ,we follow the SAME benchmark(w.r to > earth) > > > for > > > > > all > > > > > > > > Rashi Chakra placements). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Now let us take Navamsha.All the three are drawn as > > > conjunct in > > > > > > > > Aries.Do you think it is an apparent conjunction as > > > above?.Then > > > > > > > what > > > > > > > > is navamsha?First 3.2 degrees of any FIRY sign is always > > > > > assigned > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > Aries.Any planet placed within this degree span will > relate > > > to > > > > > > > Aries > > > > > > > > as navamsha.This is a tattwa based sambandha and does > not > > > > > represent > > > > > > > > any placement.On the other hand Rashi chakra placement > is > > > an > > > > > > > > astronomically measured value,adjusted for ayanamsha > > > > > > > > correction.Distance/Conjunction in Rashi chakra -points > > > towards > > > > > > > > physical seperation/proximity while navamsha points > towards > > > > > > > > sambandhas.It has no connection with distance.Hope the > > > > > difference > > > > > > > is > > > > > > > > clear this time. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > |om| > > > > > > > > Dear Pradeep, namaste > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > M-W dictionary defines conjunction as given below: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > con·junc·tion > > > > > > > > Function: noun > > > > > > > > 1 : the act or an instance of conjoining : the state of > > > being > > > > > > > > conjoined : > > > > > > > > 2 : occurrence together in time or space : > > > > > > > > 3 a : the apparent meeting or passing of two or more > > > celestial > > > > > > > > bodies in the same degree of the zodiac b : a > configuration > > > in > > > > > > > which > > > > > > > > two celestial bodies have their least apparent > separation > > > > > > > > 4 : an uninflected linguistic form that joins together > > > > > sentences, > > > > > > > > clauses, phrases, or words > > > > > > > > 5 : a complex sentence in logic true if and only if > each of > > > its > > > > > > > > components is true > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Note meaning (3a) above. It says apparent and not > PHYSICAL. > > > > > > > > Physically conjunct is a non-reality. Thus when viewed > > > against > > > > > the > > > > > > > > backdrop of the rasi, we say that two planets are > conjunct > > > when > > > > > > > they > > > > > > > > appear to be in the same rasi. This is apparent and not > > > true in > > > > > > > > reality. As pointed out earlier, rasi is also > imaginary; it > > > has > > > > > no > > > > > > > > physical boundaries in space. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The point I am driving at is that when we say that two > > > planets > > > > > are > > > > > > > > conjunct in a rasi purely on a non-physical basis > > > (apparent), > > > > > what > > > > > > > > is wrong with defining similar conjunctions in vargas? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Regarding varga (division) + uttama (best) = > vargottama, M- > > > W > > > > > > > (Monier- > > > > > > > > Williams) dictionary gives the following meanings for > > > uttama: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > uppermost, highest, chief, most elevated, principal, > best , > > > > > > > > excellent RV. AV. AitBr. Mn. Pan5cat. &c. (often ifc. , > > > e.g. % > > > > > > > > {dvijo7ttama} , best of the twice-born i.e. a Bra1hman > Mn.) > > > > > first, > > > > > > > > greatest, the highest (tone) the most removed or last in > > > place > > > > > or > > > > > > > > order or time etc. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > best regards > > > > > > > > Hari > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 27, 2006 Report Share Posted June 27, 2006 Dear Pradeepji, So if I understand you correctly, and to simplify things a bit -- the planet at 1 degree will be able to (fully) aspect another planet that is at 29 degrees of the opposite sign. Planet in Leo 1d will aspect planet in Aquarius 29d, right? I want to make sure that the entire sign is considered the kshetra for this aspect. Some people use unequal bhavas and I just wanted to establish that you consider the entire sign and bhava and not use some averaging and thus mathematically imprecise house division as sometimes is done. Are we on the same page? RR , "vijayadas_pradeep" <vijayadas_pradeep wrote: > > > Dear Rohini ji > > Your question is slightly different,though not irrelevant, from our > original discussion.Our original discussion is about a planet's > inability to ORIGINATE aspect,from a place WHERE IT IS HAVING > SAMBANDHA.Your question is about a planets ability to originate and cast > aspect FROM ITS POSITION.Block letters are used for highlighting the > difference. > Now coming to your question - > As per vedic astrology,Mars can cast full aspects on the 4th,7th and > 8th places,from itself.Concept called Drishti Kendra - ie the point > where a planet can have maximum infleuence,will help us in understanding > your example.I feel Mars can have its drishti kendras at similar degrees > on bhavas,4th, 7th and 8th from its natal degree.Thus at first degree of > Vrischika,Kumbha & Meena,Mars will have maximum influence. > > Thus Mars can aspect these points(29th degree) as they are still within > 4th,7th and 8th bhavas from Mars.But at 29th degree,the impact will be > of a lesser degree. > > Request learned members to correct me. > > Thanks > Pradeep > , "crystal pages" <jyotish_vani@> > wrote: > > > > Dear Pradeep ji, > > > > regarding griha drishtis -- > > do you consider mars in the first degree of simha capable of > > aspecting (in the vedic sense of the term) a planet that is in the > > 29th degree of scorpio, or kumbha or meena? > > > > RR > > > > , "vijayadas_pradeep" > > vijayadas_pradeep@ wrote: > > > > > > > > > Dear Rohini ji > > > > > > I think without your permission i can add a ji:-) > > > > > > If we arrange all the first vargas(Kshethras) it is exactly the > > same as > > > Rashi chakra.Then what is the difference between, Rashi chakra and > > > Kshehtra Sambandhas. > > > > > > > > > When we talk of Kshethra as a varga, it is just one division among > > > numerous divisions.We are not thinking of any other divisions. > > > > > > Example :Classical shlokas on Lagna lord in Kuja kshethra > > (irrespective > > > of whether it is in Aries or Scorpio)giving similar results.(it is > > just > > > one point and we have to consider numerous factors before arriving > > at a > > > conclusion) > > > > > > On the other hand,when we talk of Rashi chakra - It is the complete > > > system with all the sambandhas a planet is having with numerous > > > Rashis,done during Bhava niroopana. > > > > > > Example:Lord of 5th house,Shani has attained Mesha navamsha,is > > aspected > > > by natural malefic and maraka Kuja,and is in a Kroora > > shashtyamsha.He is > > > also the lord of 22nd Drekkana and hence capable of bringing maraka > > > results.The navamsha dispositor of shani ,Mars is combust,engaged > > in a > > > planetary war and is also in a bad avastha.Thus we can say Shani is > > very > > > weak.To add, Mars a maraka is having amsha in the 5th from > > lagna,making > > > Putra bhava weak. > > > > > > I have respect for the said astrologers,but those great souls may > > also > > > explain to us the reson behind their conclusions as there is no > > Pramana > > > supporting such.It is my personal opinion and you may follow your > > > conscience.If learned souls can give better explanations i am ever > > > prepeared to learn. > > > > > > Can you justify Graha drishti in vargas other then Kshethtra.In > > rashi we > > > need not take aspect as a property of varga,rather as a function of > > > planetary placements. > > > > > > > > > Thanks > > > Pradeep > > > > > > , "crystal pages" <jyotish_vani@> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > Pradeepji, > > > > > > > > I will drop the 'ji' if you will drop the same when you address > > me. > > > > Even if I may be older, that is not a good enough reason to use > > the > > > > suffix, 'ji'. In a sense we are all strangers and the 'ji' if used > > > > has nothing to do with age but out of politeness when we speak > > with a > > > > stranger or relatively a stranger. > > > > > > > > About kshetra -- yes that is a better way because then you would > > be > > > > using exactly the term Parashara has used. > > > > > > > > Unfortunately, if kundali or chakra should only be used with the > > > > rashi or kshetra varga (and not with the other vargas) -- if this > > is > > > > what is being stated then nearly all the jyotishis, including Sri > > > > Raman, Sri Rao, Sri Rath, Sri Chowdhri, Sri Bepin Behari and > > nearly > > > > every jyotishi, eastern or western, modern of ancient have all > > been > > > > sadly mistaken all their lives because they all used and advocated > > > > use of varga chakras etc. > > > > > > > > I find this a very radical concept (not using vargas as chakras) > > > > against that backdrop -- almost comparable to some of the very > > > > different values of ayanamsha (as in 10-12 degrees away from > > Lahiri > > > > or Raman). > > > > > > > > But this is a large tent, I suppose -- afterall zodiacs 23 degrees > > > > apart can coexist and be effectively used it seems without nulling > > > > out each other. So why not the framework you and your friends are > > > > claiming. > > > > > > > > Peace, > > > > > > > > RR > > > > > > > > , "vijayadas_pradeep" > > > > vijayadas_pradeep@ wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Dear Rohini ji > > > > > > > > > > I think i have requested that,you may kindly address me without > > a > > > > > ji.It is more comfortable. > > > > > What i have been saying in simple words is the following.Rashi > > > > Chakra > > > > > is not a varga.But every rashi contains set of vargas.The first > > > > varga > > > > > is a Rashi of 30 degree span.Inorder to understand this concept > > > > > properly,i have been stressing to use the word Kshethra for the > > > > first > > > > > varga-though Rashi and Kshethra are synonymns. > > > > > > > > > > Thanks > > > > > Pradeep > > > > > > > > > > , "crystal pages" > > > > > <jyotish_vani@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Pradeepji, > > > > > > Your statement that rashi contains all amshas is > > astronomically > > > > > > correct. What intrigues me, though, and I think this has been > > > > voiced > > > > > > by me earlier is that Parashara described rashi as one of the > > > > vargas > > > > > > and not a separate category which then comprises the > > remaining 15 > > > > > > vargas as described in his BPHS. So I would like to think that > > > > Sage > > > > > > was pointing at some degree of (functional) similarity between > > > > Rashi > > > > > > and other amshas and not one subsumed by another. > > > > > > > > > > > > However, in my last email I was not referring to your view > > about > > > > > > varga not being part of a chakra, or kundali (as a snake, if > > the > > > > > > imagery is permitted), but the fact that you connected the > > > > > > coincidence of rashi tattwas and amsha tattwas, etc. A similar > > > > > > qualitative link arises between the vargottama state which > > links > > > > > > three vargas: rashi, navamsha and drekkana. > > > > > > > > > > > > RR > > > > > > > > > > > > , "vijayadas_pradeep" > > > > > > <vijayadas_pradeep@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Rohini ji > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I always assumed,my mails as clear,and your mail counters my > > > > beleif. > > > > > > > So it means for the first time i am clear:-). > > > > > > > Thanks for making me learn a lesson.Clear examples can drive > > > > home > > > > > > the > > > > > > > points better. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dashadhyayi by Thalakkulathu bhattathiri ,says navamshas are > > > > > > > navapranas.Trimshamashas are Chakshuraadi Pancha > > > > > > Jnanendriyas.Saintly > > > > > > > astrological scholars like Bhattathiri having traditional > > > > > > > knowledge,will not write even a word ,which is unauthentic. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thus if we consider rashichakra as a serpent as > > Chandrashekhar > > > > ji > > > > > > has > > > > > > > mentioned,every amsha is not another serpent.But they are > > the > > > > > > various > > > > > > > subtle essences which make the serpent active.Altogether we > > > > call > > > > > > them > > > > > > > Rashi chakra.Kshethra /Navamsha etc points to individual > > > > aspects. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Shri K.N.Raojis understanding on Karakamsha is conmforming > > to > > > > > > > principles of jyotish is my personal view. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If we ask ,whether the monkey is longer or monkeys tail - > > > > initially > > > > > > we > > > > > > > might be confused.But the vaild point -monkeys length is > > > > inclusive > > > > > > of > > > > > > > its tail removes all our confusions. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Similarly Rashi chakra is inclsuive of all the amshas. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks > > > > > > > Pradeep > > > > > > > > > > > > > > , "crystal pages" > > > > > > > <jyotish_vani@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bravo Pradeep, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think you are on to something really significant -- now > > > > said in > > > > > > > > words -- shabda and vakkyaas! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Navmasha being the chart view of reality from the tattwic > > > > > > (essential) > > > > > > > > dimension makes sense! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So rashi for the physical, navamsha from the essence, the > > > > spirit, > > > > > > as > > > > > > > > the 9th represents, -- kind of like what most of us really > > > > > > > > understood, hopefully! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > RR > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > , "vijayadas_pradeep" > > > > > > > > <vijayadas_pradeep@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Hari Namaste > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Take planets Mercury/Mars/Jupiter -placed in the first > > > > degree > > > > > > of > > > > > > > > > Aries,Mars/Sag respectively.They are physically,(OK lets > > > > say > > > > > > > > > relative/apparent) present within the boundaries of > > > > > > > > > Aries/Leo/Sag.Distance between Mars/Mercury is 120 > > degrees > > > > and > > > > > > > > > Mars/Jupiter is 240 degrees(Physical seperation). > > (Apparent > > > > need > > > > > > not > > > > > > > > > be a concern as ,we follow the SAME benchmark(w.r to > > earth) > > > > for > > > > > > all > > > > > > > > > Rashi Chakra placements). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Now let us take Navamsha.All the three are drawn as > > > > conjunct in > > > > > > > > > Aries.Do you think it is an apparent conjunction as > > > > above?.Then > > > > > > > > what > > > > > > > > > is navamsha?First 3.2 degrees of any FIRY sign is always > > > > > > assigned > > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > > Aries.Any planet placed within this degree span will > > relate > > > > to > > > > > > > > Aries > > > > > > > > > as navamsha.This is a tattwa based sambandha and does > > not > > > > > > represent > > > > > > > > > any placement.On the other hand Rashi chakra placement > > is > > > > an > > > > > > > > > astronomically measured value,adjusted for ayanamsha > > > > > > > > > correction.Distance/Conjunction in Rashi chakra - points > > > > towards > > > > > > > > > physical seperation/proximity while navamsha points > > towards > > > > > > > > > sambandhas.It has no connection with distance.Hope the > > > > > > difference > > > > > > > > is > > > > > > > > > clear this time. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > |om| > > > > > > > > > Dear Pradeep, namaste > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > M-W dictionary defines conjunction as given below: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > con·junc·tion > > > > > > > > > Function: noun > > > > > > > > > 1 : the act or an instance of conjoining : the state of > > > > being > > > > > > > > > conjoined : > > > > > > > > > 2 : occurrence together in time or space : > > > > > > > > > 3 a : the apparent meeting or passing of two or more > > > > celestial > > > > > > > > > bodies in the same degree of the zodiac b : a > > configuration > > > > in > > > > > > > > which > > > > > > > > > two celestial bodies have their least apparent > > separation > > > > > > > > > 4 : an uninflected linguistic form that joins together > > > > > > sentences, > > > > > > > > > clauses, phrases, or words > > > > > > > > > 5 : a complex sentence in logic true if and only if > > each of > > > > its > > > > > > > > > components is true > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Note meaning (3a) above. It says apparent and not > > PHYSICAL. > > > > > > > > > Physically conjunct is a non-reality. Thus when viewed > > > > against > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > backdrop of the rasi, we say that two planets are > > conjunct > > > > when > > > > > > > > they > > > > > > > > > appear to be in the same rasi. This is apparent and not > > > > true in > > > > > > > > > reality. As pointed out earlier, rasi is also > > imaginary; it > > > > has > > > > > > no > > > > > > > > > physical boundaries in space. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The point I am driving at is that when we say that two > > > > planets > > > > > > are > > > > > > > > > conjunct in a rasi purely on a non-physical basis > > > > (apparent), > > > > > > what > > > > > > > > > is wrong with defining similar conjunctions in vargas? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Regarding varga (division) + uttama (best) = > > vargottama, M- > > > > W > > > > > > > > (Monier- > > > > > > > > > Williams) dictionary gives the following meanings for > > > > uttama: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > uppermost, highest, chief, most elevated, principal, > > best , > > > > > > > > > excellent RV. AV. AitBr. Mn. Pan5cat. &c. (often ifc. , > > > > e.g. % > > > > > > > > > {dvijo7ttama} , best of the twice-born i.e. a Bra1hman > > Mn.) > > > > > > first, > > > > > > > > > greatest, the highest (tone) the most removed or last in > > > > place > > > > > > or > > > > > > > > > order or time etc. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > best regards > > > > > > > > > Hari > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 28, 2006 Report Share Posted June 28, 2006 Dear Rohini ji I had understood this point in your mind(unequal houses) during the previous mail communication itself.Didn't want to deviate the topic and refrained from commenting. As advised by learned members,like Chandrashekhar ji,i go for equal division. Thus planet at Leo 1d will cast full aspect on Bhava hosted by Aquarius sign.for quantification, intensity will be full at 1 deg Aq.Infleuence is on the bhava,through full aspect. Hoep others will correct,if i am wrong. Pardeep , "crystal pages" <jyotish_vani wrote: > > Dear Pradeepji, > > So if I understand you correctly, and to simplify things a bit -- the > planet at 1 degree will be able to (fully) aspect another planet that > is at 29 degrees of the opposite sign. Planet in Leo 1d will aspect > planet in Aquarius 29d, right? > > I want to make sure that the entire sign is considered the kshetra > for this aspect. Some people use unequal bhavas and I just wanted to > establish that you consider the entire sign and bhava and not use > some averaging and thus mathematically imprecise house division as > sometimes is done. > > Are we on the same page? > > RR > > , "vijayadas_pradeep" > <vijayadas_pradeep@> wrote: > > > > > > Dear Rohini ji > > > > Your question is slightly different,though not irrelevant, from our > > original discussion.Our original discussion is about a planet's > > inability to ORIGINATE aspect,from a place WHERE IT IS HAVING > > SAMBANDHA.Your question is about a planets ability to originate and > cast > > aspect FROM ITS POSITION.Block letters are used for highlighting the > > difference. > > Now coming to your question - > > As per vedic astrology,Mars can cast full aspects on the 4th,7th > and > > 8th places,from itself.Concept called Drishti Kendra - ie the point > > where a planet can have maximum infleuence,will help us in > understanding > > your example.I feel Mars can have its drishti kendras at similar > degrees > > on bhavas,4th, 7th and 8th from its natal degree.Thus at first > degree of > > Vrischika,Kumbha & Meena,Mars will have maximum influence. > > > > Thus Mars can aspect these points(29th degree) as they are still > within > > 4th,7th and 8th bhavas from Mars.But at 29th degree,the impact will > be > > of a lesser degree. > > > > Request learned members to correct me. > > > > Thanks > > Pradeep > > , "crystal pages" <jyotish_vani@> > > wrote: > > > > > > Dear Pradeep ji, > > > > > > regarding griha drishtis -- > > > do you consider mars in the first degree of simha capable of > > > aspecting (in the vedic sense of the term) a planet that is in the > > > 29th degree of scorpio, or kumbha or meena? > > > > > > RR > > > > > > , "vijayadas_pradeep" > > > vijayadas_pradeep@ wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Rohini ji > > > > > > > > I think without your permission i can add a ji:-) > > > > > > > > If we arrange all the first vargas(Kshethras) it is exactly the > > > same as > > > > Rashi chakra.Then what is the difference between, Rashi chakra > and > > > > Kshehtra Sambandhas. > > > > > > > > > > > > When we talk of Kshethra as a varga, it is just one division > among > > > > numerous divisions.We are not thinking of any other divisions. > > > > > > > > Example :Classical shlokas on Lagna lord in Kuja kshethra > > > (irrespective > > > > of whether it is in Aries or Scorpio)giving similar results. (it > is > > > just > > > > one point and we have to consider numerous factors before > arriving > > > at a > > > > conclusion) > > > > > > > > On the other hand,when we talk of Rashi chakra - It is the > complete > > > > system with all the sambandhas a planet is having with numerous > > > > Rashis,done during Bhava niroopana. > > > > > > > > Example:Lord of 5th house,Shani has attained Mesha navamsha,is > > > aspected > > > > by natural malefic and maraka Kuja,and is in a Kroora > > > shashtyamsha.He is > > > > also the lord of 22nd Drekkana and hence capable of bringing > maraka > > > > results.The navamsha dispositor of shani ,Mars is > combust,engaged > > > in a > > > > planetary war and is also in a bad avastha.Thus we can say > Shani is > > > very > > > > weak.To add, Mars a maraka is having amsha in the 5th from > > > lagna,making > > > > Putra bhava weak. > > > > > > > > I have respect for the said astrologers,but those great souls > may > > > also > > > > explain to us the reson behind their conclusions as there is no > > > Pramana > > > > supporting such.It is my personal opinion and you may follow > your > > > > conscience.If learned souls can give better explanations i am > ever > > > > prepeared to learn. > > > > > > > > Can you justify Graha drishti in vargas other then Kshethtra.In > > > rashi we > > > > need not take aspect as a property of varga,rather as a > function of > > > > planetary placements. > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks > > > > Pradeep > > > > > > > > , "crystal pages" > <jyotish_vani@> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Pradeepji, > > > > > > > > > > I will drop the 'ji' if you will drop the same when you > address > > > me. > > > > > Even if I may be older, that is not a good enough reason to > use > > > the > > > > > suffix, 'ji'. In a sense we are all strangers and the 'ji' if > used > > > > > has nothing to do with age but out of politeness when we speak > > > with a > > > > > stranger or relatively a stranger. > > > > > > > > > > About kshetra -- yes that is a better way because then you > would > > > be > > > > > using exactly the term Parashara has used. > > > > > > > > > > Unfortunately, if kundali or chakra should only be used with > the > > > > > rashi or kshetra varga (and not with the other vargas) -- if > this > > > is > > > > > what is being stated then nearly all the jyotishis, including > Sri > > > > > Raman, Sri Rao, Sri Rath, Sri Chowdhri, Sri Bepin Behari and > > > nearly > > > > > every jyotishi, eastern or western, modern of ancient have all > > > been > > > > > sadly mistaken all their lives because they all used and > advocated > > > > > use of varga chakras etc. > > > > > > > > > > I find this a very radical concept (not using vargas as > chakras) > > > > > against that backdrop -- almost comparable to some of the very > > > > > different values of ayanamsha (as in 10-12 degrees away from > > > Lahiri > > > > > or Raman). > > > > > > > > > > But this is a large tent, I suppose -- afterall zodiacs 23 > degrees > > > > > apart can coexist and be effectively used it seems without > nulling > > > > > out each other. So why not the framework you and your friends > are > > > > > claiming. > > > > > > > > > > Peace, > > > > > > > > > > RR > > > > > > > > > > , "vijayadas_pradeep" > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep@ wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Rohini ji > > > > > > > > > > > > I think i have requested that,you may kindly address me > without > > > a > > > > > > ji.It is more comfortable. > > > > > > What i have been saying in simple words is the > following.Rashi > > > > > Chakra > > > > > > is not a varga.But every rashi contains set of vargas.The > first > > > > > varga > > > > > > is a Rashi of 30 degree span.Inorder to understand this > concept > > > > > > properly,i have been stressing to use the word Kshethra for > the > > > > > first > > > > > > varga-though Rashi and Kshethra are synonymns. > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks > > > > > > Pradeep > > > > > > > > > > > > , "crystal pages" > > > > > > <jyotish_vani@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Pradeepji, > > > > > > > Your statement that rashi contains all amshas is > > > astronomically > > > > > > > correct. What intrigues me, though, and I think this has > been > > > > > voiced > > > > > > > by me earlier is that Parashara described rashi as one of > the > > > > > vargas > > > > > > > and not a separate category which then comprises the > > > remaining 15 > > > > > > > vargas as described in his BPHS. So I would like to think > that > > > > > Sage > > > > > > > was pointing at some degree of (functional) similarity > between > > > > > Rashi > > > > > > > and other amshas and not one subsumed by another. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > However, in my last email I was not referring to your view > > > about > > > > > > > varga not being part of a chakra, or kundali (as a snake, > if > > > the > > > > > > > imagery is permitted), but the fact that you connected the > > > > > > > coincidence of rashi tattwas and amsha tattwas, etc. A > similar > > > > > > > qualitative link arises between the vargottama state which > > > links > > > > > > > three vargas: rashi, navamsha and drekkana. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > RR > > > > > > > > > > > > > > , "vijayadas_pradeep" > > > > > > > <vijayadas_pradeep@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Rohini ji > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I always assumed,my mails as clear,and your mail > counters my > > > > > beleif. > > > > > > > > So it means for the first time i am clear:-). > > > > > > > > Thanks for making me learn a lesson.Clear examples can > drive > > > > > home > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > points better. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dashadhyayi by Thalakkulathu bhattathiri ,says > navamshas are > > > > > > > > navapranas.Trimshamashas are Chakshuraadi Pancha > > > > > > > Jnanendriyas.Saintly > > > > > > > > astrological scholars like Bhattathiri having > traditional > > > > > > > > knowledge,will not write even a word ,which is > unauthentic. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thus if we consider rashichakra as a serpent as > > > Chandrashekhar > > > > > ji > > > > > > > has > > > > > > > > mentioned,every amsha is not another serpent.But they > are > > > the > > > > > > > various > > > > > > > > subtle essences which make the serpent > active.Altogether we > > > > > call > > > > > > > them > > > > > > > > Rashi chakra.Kshethra /Navamsha etc points to individual > > > > > aspects. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Shri K.N.Raojis understanding on Karakamsha is > conmforming > > > to > > > > > > > > principles of jyotish is my personal view. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If we ask ,whether the monkey is longer or monkeys > tail - > > > > > initially > > > > > > > we > > > > > > > > might be confused.But the vaild point -monkeys length is > > > > > inclusive > > > > > > > of > > > > > > > > its tail removes all our confusions. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Similarly Rashi chakra is inclsuive of all the amshas. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks > > > > > > > > Pradeep > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > , "crystal pages" > > > > > > > > <jyotish_vani@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bravo Pradeep, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think you are on to something really significant -- > now > > > > > said in > > > > > > > > > words -- shabda and vakkyaas! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Navmasha being the chart view of reality from the > tattwic > > > > > > > (essential) > > > > > > > > > dimension makes sense! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So rashi for the physical, navamsha from the essence, > the > > > > > spirit, > > > > > > > as > > > > > > > > > the 9th represents, -- kind of like what most of us > really > > > > > > > > > understood, hopefully! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > RR > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > , "vijayadas_pradeep" > > > > > > > > > <vijayadas_pradeep@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Hari Namaste > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Take planets Mercury/Mars/Jupiter -placed in the > first > > > > > degree > > > > > > > of > > > > > > > > > > Aries,Mars/Sag respectively.They are physically, (OK > lets > > > > > say > > > > > > > > > > relative/apparent) present within the boundaries of > > > > > > > > > > Aries/Leo/Sag.Distance between Mars/Mercury is 120 > > > degrees > > > > > and > > > > > > > > > > Mars/Jupiter is 240 degrees(Physical seperation). > > > (Apparent > > > > > need > > > > > > > not > > > > > > > > > > be a concern as ,we follow the SAME benchmark (w.r to > > > earth) > > > > > for > > > > > > > all > > > > > > > > > > Rashi Chakra placements). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Now let us take Navamsha.All the three are drawn as > > > > > conjunct in > > > > > > > > > > Aries.Do you think it is an apparent conjunction as > > > > > above?.Then > > > > > > > > > what > > > > > > > > > > is navamsha?First 3.2 degrees of any FIRY sign is > always > > > > > > > assigned > > > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > > > Aries.Any planet placed within this degree span will > > > relate > > > > > to > > > > > > > > > Aries > > > > > > > > > > as navamsha.This is a tattwa based sambandha and > does > > > not > > > > > > > represent > > > > > > > > > > any placement.On the other hand Rashi chakra > placement > > > is > > > > > an > > > > > > > > > > astronomically measured value,adjusted for ayanamsha > > > > > > > > > > correction.Distance/Conjunction in Rashi chakra - > points > > > > > towards > > > > > > > > > > physical seperation/proximity while navamsha points > > > towards > > > > > > > > > > sambandhas.It has no connection with distance.Hope > the > > > > > > > difference > > > > > > > > > is > > > > > > > > > > clear this time. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > |om| > > > > > > > > > > Dear Pradeep, namaste > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > M-W dictionary defines conjunction as given below: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > con·junc·tion > > > > > > > > > > Function: noun > > > > > > > > > > 1 : the act or an instance of conjoining : the > state of > > > > > being > > > > > > > > > > conjoined : > > > > > > > > > > 2 : occurrence together in time or space : > > > > > > > > > > 3 a : the apparent meeting or passing of two or more > > > > > celestial > > > > > > > > > > bodies in the same degree of the zodiac b : a > > > configuration > > > > > in > > > > > > > > > which > > > > > > > > > > two celestial bodies have their least apparent > > > separation > > > > > > > > > > 4 : an uninflected linguistic form that joins > together > > > > > > > sentences, > > > > > > > > > > clauses, phrases, or words > > > > > > > > > > 5 : a complex sentence in logic true if and only if > > > each of > > > > > its > > > > > > > > > > components is true > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Note meaning (3a) above. It says apparent and not > > > PHYSICAL. > > > > > > > > > > Physically conjunct is a non-reality. Thus when > viewed > > > > > against > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > backdrop of the rasi, we say that two planets are > > > conjunct > > > > > when > > > > > > > > > they > > > > > > > > > > appear to be in the same rasi. This is apparent and > not > > > > > true in > > > > > > > > > > reality. As pointed out earlier, rasi is also > > > imaginary; it > > > > > has > > > > > > > no > > > > > > > > > > physical boundaries in space. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The point I am driving at is that when we say that > two > > > > > planets > > > > > > > are > > > > > > > > > > conjunct in a rasi purely on a non-physical basis > > > > > (apparent), > > > > > > > what > > > > > > > > > > is wrong with defining similar conjunctions in > vargas? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Regarding varga (division) + uttama (best) = > > > vargottama, M- > > > > > W > > > > > > > > > (Monier- > > > > > > > > > > Williams) dictionary gives the following meanings > for > > > > > uttama: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > uppermost, highest, chief, most elevated, principal, > > > best , > > > > > > > > > > excellent RV. AV. AitBr. Mn. Pan5cat. &c. (often > ifc. , > > > > > e.g. % > > > > > > > > > > {dvijo7ttama} , best of the twice-born i.e. a > Bra1hman > > > Mn.) > > > > > > > first, > > > > > > > > > > greatest, the highest (tone) the most removed or > last in > > > > > place > > > > > > > or > > > > > > > > > > order or time etc. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > best regards > > > > > > > > > > Hari > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 28, 2006 Report Share Posted June 28, 2006 Pradeepji, I think we are still within the thread -- I was trying to focus on the question about drishti that you raised. But prior to that I wanted to make sure that we are using similar framework for aspects. Aspects has been understood and utilized so differently by different jyotishis that it was necessary to make sure. So getting back into what we were discussing, my understanding so far: Planet A in 1deg Leo can cast griha drishti on a planet B at 1deg aquarius fully (drishti kendra) but it can also caste a slightly weaker drishti if planet C is at 29deg aquarius. Is my understanding correct that if there is a planet D at cancer 29deg, it would not be casting any significant griha drishti on the planet E at 27deg aquarius? A: 1deg Leo rashi B: 1deg aquarius rashi C: 29deg aquarius rashi D: 29deg cancer rashi E: 27deg aquarius rashi Thanks for your patience and cooperation RR , "vijayadas_pradeep" <vijayadas_pradeep wrote: > > Dear Rohini ji > > I had understood this point in your mind(unequal houses) during the > previous mail communication itself.Didn't want to deviate the topic > and refrained from commenting. > > As advised by learned members,like Chandrashekhar ji,i go for equal > division. > > Thus planet at Leo 1d will cast full aspect on Bhava hosted by > Aquarius sign.for quantification, intensity will be full at 1 deg > Aq.Infleuence is on the bhava,through full aspect. > > Hoep others will correct,if i am wrong. > > Pardeep > > , "crystal pages" > <jyotish_vani@> wrote: > > > > Dear Pradeepji, > > > > So if I understand you correctly, and to simplify things a bit -- > the > > planet at 1 degree will be able to (fully) aspect another planet > that > > is at 29 degrees of the opposite sign. Planet in Leo 1d will > aspect > > planet in Aquarius 29d, right? > > > > I want to make sure that the entire sign is considered the kshetra > > for this aspect. Some people use unequal bhavas and I just wanted > to > > establish that you consider the entire sign and bhava and not use > > some averaging and thus mathematically imprecise house division as > > sometimes is done. > > > > Are we on the same page? > > > > RR > > > > , "vijayadas_pradeep" > > <vijayadas_pradeep@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Dear Rohini ji > > > > > > Your question is slightly different,though not irrelevant, from > our > > > original discussion.Our original discussion is about a planet's > > > inability to ORIGINATE aspect,from a place WHERE IT IS HAVING > > > SAMBANDHA.Your question is about a planets ability to originate > and > > cast > > > aspect FROM ITS POSITION.Block letters are used for highlighting > the > > > difference. > > > Now coming to your question - > > > As per vedic astrology,Mars can cast full aspects on the > 4th,7th > > and > > > 8th places,from itself.Concept called Drishti Kendra - ie the > point > > > where a planet can have maximum infleuence,will help us in > > understanding > > > your example.I feel Mars can have its drishti kendras at similar > > degrees > > > on bhavas,4th, 7th and 8th from its natal degree.Thus at first > > degree of > > > Vrischika,Kumbha & Meena,Mars will have maximum influence. > > > > > > Thus Mars can aspect these points(29th degree) as they are still > > within > > > 4th,7th and 8th bhavas from Mars.But at 29th degree,the impact > will > > be > > > of a lesser degree. > > > > > > Request learned members to correct me. > > > > > > Thanks > > > Pradeep > > > , "crystal pages" > <jyotish_vani@> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > Dear Pradeep ji, > > > > > > > > regarding griha drishtis -- > > > > do you consider mars in the first degree of simha capable of > > > > aspecting (in the vedic sense of the term) a planet that is in > the > > > > 29th degree of scorpio, or kumbha or meena? > > > > > > > > RR > > > > > > > > , "vijayadas_pradeep" > > > > vijayadas_pradeep@ wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Rohini ji > > > > > > > > > > I think without your permission i can add a ji:-) > > > > > > > > > > If we arrange all the first vargas(Kshethras) it is exactly > the > > > > same as > > > > > Rashi chakra.Then what is the difference between, Rashi > chakra > > and > > > > > Kshehtra Sambandhas. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > When we talk of Kshethra as a varga, it is just one division > > among > > > > > numerous divisions.We are not thinking of any other > divisions. > > > > > > > > > > Example :Classical shlokas on Lagna lord in Kuja kshethra > > > > (irrespective > > > > > of whether it is in Aries or Scorpio)giving similar results. > (it > > is > > > > just > > > > > one point and we have to consider numerous factors before > > arriving > > > > at a > > > > > conclusion) > > > > > > > > > > On the other hand,when we talk of Rashi chakra - It is the > > complete > > > > > system with all the sambandhas a planet is having with > numerous > > > > > Rashis,done during Bhava niroopana. > > > > > > > > > > Example:Lord of 5th house,Shani has attained Mesha > navamsha,is > > > > aspected > > > > > by natural malefic and maraka Kuja,and is in a Kroora > > > > shashtyamsha.He is > > > > > also the lord of 22nd Drekkana and hence capable of bringing > > maraka > > > > > results.The navamsha dispositor of shani ,Mars is > > combust,engaged > > > > in a > > > > > planetary war and is also in a bad avastha.Thus we can say > > Shani is > > > > very > > > > > weak.To add, Mars a maraka is having amsha in the 5th from > > > > lagna,making > > > > > Putra bhava weak. > > > > > > > > > > I have respect for the said astrologers,but those great > souls > > may > > > > also > > > > > explain to us the reson behind their conclusions as there is > no > > > > Pramana > > > > > supporting such.It is my personal opinion and you may follow > > your > > > > > conscience.If learned souls can give better explanations i > am > > ever > > > > > prepeared to learn. > > > > > > > > > > Can you justify Graha drishti in vargas other then > Kshethtra.In > > > > rashi we > > > > > need not take aspect as a property of varga,rather as a > > function of > > > > > planetary placements. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks > > > > > Pradeep > > > > > > > > > > , "crystal pages" > > <jyotish_vani@> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Pradeepji, > > > > > > > > > > > > I will drop the 'ji' if you will drop the same when you > > address > > > > me. > > > > > > Even if I may be older, that is not a good enough reason > to > > use > > > > the > > > > > > suffix, 'ji'. In a sense we are all strangers and the 'ji' > if > > used > > > > > > has nothing to do with age but out of politeness when we > speak > > > > with a > > > > > > stranger or relatively a stranger. > > > > > > > > > > > > About kshetra -- yes that is a better way because then you > > would > > > > be > > > > > > using exactly the term Parashara has used. > > > > > > > > > > > > Unfortunately, if kundali or chakra should only be used > with > > the > > > > > > rashi or kshetra varga (and not with the other vargas) -- > if > > this > > > > is > > > > > > what is being stated then nearly all the jyotishis, > including > > Sri > > > > > > Raman, Sri Rao, Sri Rath, Sri Chowdhri, Sri Bepin Behari > and > > > > nearly > > > > > > every jyotishi, eastern or western, modern of ancient have > all > > > > been > > > > > > sadly mistaken all their lives because they all used and > > advocated > > > > > > use of varga chakras etc. > > > > > > > > > > > > I find this a very radical concept (not using vargas as > > chakras) > > > > > > against that backdrop -- almost comparable to some of the > very > > > > > > different values of ayanamsha (as in 10-12 degrees away > from > > > > Lahiri > > > > > > or Raman). > > > > > > > > > > > > But this is a large tent, I suppose -- afterall zodiacs 23 > > degrees > > > > > > apart can coexist and be effectively used it seems without > > nulling > > > > > > out each other. So why not the framework you and your > friends > > are > > > > > > claiming. > > > > > > > > > > > > Peace, > > > > > > > > > > > > RR > > > > > > > > > > > > , "vijayadas_pradeep" > > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep@ wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Rohini ji > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think i have requested that,you may kindly address me > > without > > > > a > > > > > > > ji.It is more comfortable. > > > > > > > What i have been saying in simple words is the > > following.Rashi > > > > > > Chakra > > > > > > > is not a varga.But every rashi contains set of > vargas.The > > first > > > > > > varga > > > > > > > is a Rashi of 30 degree span.Inorder to understand this > > concept > > > > > > > properly,i have been stressing to use the word Kshethra > for > > the > > > > > > first > > > > > > > varga-though Rashi and Kshethra are synonymns. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks > > > > > > > Pradeep > > > > > > > > > > > > > > , "crystal pages" > > > > > > > <jyotish_vani@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Pradeepji, > > > > > > > > Your statement that rashi contains all amshas is > > > > astronomically > > > > > > > > correct. What intrigues me, though, and I think this > has > > been > > > > > > voiced > > > > > > > > by me earlier is that Parashara described rashi as one > of > > the > > > > > > vargas > > > > > > > > and not a separate category which then comprises the > > > > remaining 15 > > > > > > > > vargas as described in his BPHS. So I would like to > think > > that > > > > > > Sage > > > > > > > > was pointing at some degree of (functional) similarity > > between > > > > > > Rashi > > > > > > > > and other amshas and not one subsumed by another. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > However, in my last email I was not referring to your > view > > > > about > > > > > > > > varga not being part of a chakra, or kundali (as a > snake, > > if > > > > the > > > > > > > > imagery is permitted), but the fact that you connected > the > > > > > > > > coincidence of rashi tattwas and amsha tattwas, etc. A > > similar > > > > > > > > qualitative link arises between the vargottama state > which > > > > links > > > > > > > > three vargas: rashi, navamsha and drekkana. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > RR > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > , "vijayadas_pradeep" > > > > > > > > <vijayadas_pradeep@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Rohini ji > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I always assumed,my mails as clear,and your mail > > counters my > > > > > > beleif. > > > > > > > > > So it means for the first time i am clear:-). > > > > > > > > > Thanks for making me learn a lesson.Clear examples > can > > drive > > > > > > home > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > points better. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dashadhyayi by Thalakkulathu bhattathiri ,says > > navamshas are > > > > > > > > > navapranas.Trimshamashas are Chakshuraadi Pancha > > > > > > > > Jnanendriyas.Saintly > > > > > > > > > astrological scholars like Bhattathiri having > > traditional > > > > > > > > > knowledge,will not write even a word ,which is > > unauthentic. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thus if we consider rashichakra as a serpent as > > > > Chandrashekhar > > > > > > ji > > > > > > > > has > > > > > > > > > mentioned,every amsha is not another serpent.But > they > > are > > > > the > > > > > > > > various > > > > > > > > > subtle essences which make the serpent > > active.Altogether we > > > > > > call > > > > > > > > them > > > > > > > > > Rashi chakra.Kshethra /Navamsha etc points to > individual > > > > > > aspects. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Shri K.N.Raojis understanding on Karakamsha is > > conmforming > > > > to > > > > > > > > > principles of jyotish is my personal view. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If we ask ,whether the monkey is longer or monkeys > > tail - > > > > > > initially > > > > > > > > we > > > > > > > > > might be confused.But the vaild point -monkeys > length is > > > > > > inclusive > > > > > > > > of > > > > > > > > > its tail removes all our confusions. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Similarly Rashi chakra is inclsuive of all the > amshas. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks > > > > > > > > > Pradeep > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > , "crystal pages" > > > > > > > > > <jyotish_vani@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bravo Pradeep, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think you are on to something really > significant -- > > now > > > > > > said in > > > > > > > > > > words -- shabda and vakkyaas! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Navmasha being the chart view of reality from the > > tattwic > > > > > > > > (essential) > > > > > > > > > > dimension makes sense! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So rashi for the physical, navamsha from the > essence, > > the > > > > > > spirit, > > > > > > > > as > > > > > > > > > > the 9th represents, -- kind of like what most of > us > > really > > > > > > > > > > understood, hopefully! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > RR > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > , "vijayadas_pradeep" > > > > > > > > > > <vijayadas_pradeep@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Hari Namaste > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Take planets Mercury/Mars/Jupiter -placed in the > > first > > > > > > degree > > > > > > > > of > > > > > > > > > > > Aries,Mars/Sag respectively.They are physically, > (OK > > lets > > > > > > say > > > > > > > > > > > relative/apparent) present within the boundaries > of > > > > > > > > > > > Aries/Leo/Sag.Distance between Mars/Mercury is > 120 > > > > degrees > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > > > > Mars/Jupiter is 240 degrees(Physical seperation). > > > > (Apparent > > > > > > need > > > > > > > > not > > > > > > > > > > > be a concern as ,we follow the SAME benchmark > (w.r to > > > > earth) > > > > > > for > > > > > > > > all > > > > > > > > > > > Rashi Chakra placements). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Now let us take Navamsha.All the three are drawn > as > > > > > > conjunct in > > > > > > > > > > > Aries.Do you think it is an apparent conjunction > as > > > > > > above?.Then > > > > > > > > > > what > > > > > > > > > > > is navamsha?First 3.2 degrees of any FIRY sign > is > > always > > > > > > > > assigned > > > > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > > > > Aries.Any planet placed within this degree span > will > > > > relate > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > > > Aries > > > > > > > > > > > as navamsha.This is a tattwa based sambandha and > > does > > > > not > > > > > > > > represent > > > > > > > > > > > any placement.On the other hand Rashi chakra > > placement > > > > is > > > > > > an > > > > > > > > > > > astronomically measured value,adjusted for > ayanamsha > > > > > > > > > > > correction.Distance/Conjunction in Rashi chakra - > > points > > > > > > towards > > > > > > > > > > > physical seperation/proximity while navamsha > points > > > > towards > > > > > > > > > > > sambandhas.It has no connection with > distance.Hope > > the > > > > > > > > difference > > > > > > > > > > is > > > > > > > > > > > clear this time. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > |om| > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Pradeep, namaste > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > M-W dictionary defines conjunction as given > below: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > con·junc·tion > > > > > > > > > > > Function: noun > > > > > > > > > > > 1 : the act or an instance of conjoining : the > > state of > > > > > > being > > > > > > > > > > > conjoined : > > > > > > > > > > > 2 : occurrence together in time or space : > > > > > > > > > > > 3 a : the apparent meeting or passing of two or > more > > > > > > celestial > > > > > > > > > > > bodies in the same degree of the zodiac b : a > > > > configuration > > > > > > in > > > > > > > > > > which > > > > > > > > > > > two celestial bodies have their least apparent > > > > separation > > > > > > > > > > > 4 : an uninflected linguistic form that joins > > together > > > > > > > > sentences, > > > > > > > > > > > clauses, phrases, or words > > > > > > > > > > > 5 : a complex sentence in logic true if and only > if > > > > each of > > > > > > its > > > > > > > > > > > components is true > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Note meaning (3a) above. It says apparent and not > > > > PHYSICAL. > > > > > > > > > > > Physically conjunct is a non-reality. Thus when > > viewed > > > > > > against > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > backdrop of the rasi, we say that two planets are > > > > conjunct > > > > > > when > > > > > > > > > > they > > > > > > > > > > > appear to be in the same rasi. This is apparent > and > > not > > > > > > true in > > > > > > > > > > > reality. As pointed out earlier, rasi is also > > > > imaginary; it > > > > > > has > > > > > > > > no > > > > > > > > > > > physical boundaries in space. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The point I am driving at is that when we say > that > > two > > > > > > planets > > > > > > > > are > > > > > > > > > > > conjunct in a rasi purely on a non-physical basis > > > > > > (apparent), > > > > > > > > what > > > > > > > > > > > is wrong with defining similar conjunctions in > > vargas? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Regarding varga (division) + uttama (best) = > > > > vargottama, M- > > > > > > W > > > > > > > > > > (Monier- > > > > > > > > > > > Williams) dictionary gives the following > meanings > > for > > > > > > uttama: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > uppermost, highest, chief, most elevated, > principal, > > > > best , > > > > > > > > > > > excellent RV. AV. AitBr. Mn. Pan5cat. &c. (often > > ifc. , > > > > > > e.g. % > > > > > > > > > > > {dvijo7ttama} , best of the twice-born i.e. a > > Bra1hman > > > > Mn.) > > > > > > > > first, > > > > > > > > > > > greatest, the highest (tone) the most removed or > > last in > > > > > > place > > > > > > > > or > > > > > > > > > > > order or time etc. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > best regards > > > > > > > > > > > Hari > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 29, 2006 Report Share Posted June 29, 2006 Dear Rohini ji These are tough questions and i cannot make any authoritative statements on matters beyond my complete perception. There is a qualitative as well as quantitative aspect as far as drishtis are concerned. Qualitative is infact the reason for aspect.Thus Mars is having a qualitative responsibility to aspect bhavas 4th from it.Degrees are for quantifying the same. a)Now for your question - if the said planet is other than Mars,then there is no qualitative resposnibility to aspect the 8th bhava from it(that role is not played). b)But the grahas are almost opposite and hence there will be significant infleunces.Thus these aspects can be consdiered for other purposes(say two malefics aspecting each other) within the chart,than those mentioned under point a. But i will say philosophy and degrees are approximately pointing to the same.For example , when we say 4th bhava,it always a variable.It depends on from where we are considering 4th.Thus there is always the same amount of degrees traversed(approximately).But if 4th bhava is always a fixed place say always cancer,then degree has no role. This is my personal view,and can be corrected. Pradeep , "crystal pages" <jyotish_vani wrote: > > Pradeepji, > > I think we are still within the thread -- I was trying to focus on > the question about drishti that you raised. But prior to that I > wanted to make sure that we are using similar framework for aspects. > Aspects has been understood and utilized so differently by different > jyotishis that it was necessary to make sure. > > So getting back into what we were discussing, my understanding so far: > > Planet A in 1deg Leo can cast griha drishti on a planet B at 1deg > aquarius fully (drishti kendra) but it can also caste a slightly > weaker drishti if planet C is at 29deg aquarius. > > Is my understanding correct that if there is a planet D at cancer > 29deg, it would not be casting any significant griha drishti on the > planet E at 27deg aquarius? > > A: 1deg Leo rashi > B: 1deg aquarius rashi > C: 29deg aquarius rashi > D: 29deg cancer rashi > E: 27deg aquarius rashi > > Thanks for your patience and cooperation > > RR > > > > > > , "vijayadas_pradeep" > vijayadas_pradeep@ wrote: > > > > Dear Rohini ji > > > > I had understood this point in your mind(unequal houses) during the > > previous mail communication itself.Didn't want to deviate the topic > > and refrained from commenting. > > > > As advised by learned members,like Chandrashekhar ji,i go for equal > > division. > > > > Thus planet at Leo 1d will cast full aspect on Bhava hosted by > > Aquarius sign.for quantification, intensity will be full at 1 deg > > Aq.Infleuence is on the bhava,through full aspect. > > > > Hoep others will correct,if i am wrong. > > > > Pardeep > > > > , "crystal pages" > > <jyotish_vani@> wrote: > > > > > > Dear Pradeepji, > > > > > > So if I understand you correctly, and to simplify things a bit -- > > the > > > planet at 1 degree will be able to (fully) aspect another planet > > that > > > is at 29 degrees of the opposite sign. Planet in Leo 1d will > > aspect > > > planet in Aquarius 29d, right? > > > > > > I want to make sure that the entire sign is considered the > kshetra > > > for this aspect. Some people use unequal bhavas and I just wanted > > to > > > establish that you consider the entire sign and bhava and not use > > > some averaging and thus mathematically imprecise house division > as > > > sometimes is done. > > > > > > Are we on the same page? > > > > > > RR > > > > > > , "vijayadas_pradeep" > > > <vijayadas_pradeep@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Rohini ji > > > > > > > > Your question is slightly different,though not irrelevant, from > > our > > > > original discussion.Our original discussion is about a planet's > > > > inability to ORIGINATE aspect,from a place WHERE IT IS HAVING > > > > SAMBANDHA.Your question is about a planets ability to originate > > and > > > cast > > > > aspect FROM ITS POSITION.Block letters are used for > highlighting > > the > > > > difference. > > > > Now coming to your question - > > > > As per vedic astrology,Mars can cast full aspects on the > > 4th,7th > > > and > > > > 8th places,from itself.Concept called Drishti Kendra - ie the > > point > > > > where a planet can have maximum infleuence,will help us in > > > understanding > > > > your example.I feel Mars can have its drishti kendras at > similar > > > degrees > > > > on bhavas,4th, 7th and 8th from its natal degree.Thus at first > > > degree of > > > > Vrischika,Kumbha & Meena,Mars will have maximum influence. > > > > > > > > Thus Mars can aspect these points(29th degree) as they are > still > > > within > > > > 4th,7th and 8th bhavas from Mars.But at 29th degree,the impact > > will > > > be > > > > of a lesser degree. > > > > > > > > Request learned members to correct me. > > > > > > > > Thanks > > > > Pradeep > > > > , "crystal pages" > > <jyotish_vani@> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Dear Pradeep ji, > > > > > > > > > > regarding griha drishtis -- > > > > > do you consider mars in the first degree of simha capable of > > > > > aspecting (in the vedic sense of the term) a planet that is > in > > the > > > > > 29th degree of scorpio, or kumbha or meena? > > > > > > > > > > RR > > > > > > > > > > , "vijayadas_pradeep" > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep@ wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Rohini ji > > > > > > > > > > > > I think without your permission i can add a ji:-) > > > > > > > > > > > > If we arrange all the first vargas(Kshethras) it is exactly > > the > > > > > same as > > > > > > Rashi chakra.Then what is the difference between, Rashi > > chakra > > > and > > > > > > Kshehtra Sambandhas. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > When we talk of Kshethra as a varga, it is just one > division > > > among > > > > > > numerous divisions.We are not thinking of any other > > divisions. > > > > > > > > > > > > Example :Classical shlokas on Lagna lord in Kuja kshethra > > > > > (irrespective > > > > > > of whether it is in Aries or Scorpio)giving similar results. > > (it > > > is > > > > > just > > > > > > one point and we have to consider numerous factors before > > > arriving > > > > > at a > > > > > > conclusion) > > > > > > > > > > > > On the other hand,when we talk of Rashi chakra - It is the > > > complete > > > > > > system with all the sambandhas a planet is having with > > numerous > > > > > > Rashis,done during Bhava niroopana. > > > > > > > > > > > > Example:Lord of 5th house,Shani has attained Mesha > > navamsha,is > > > > > aspected > > > > > > by natural malefic and maraka Kuja,and is in a Kroora > > > > > shashtyamsha.He is > > > > > > also the lord of 22nd Drekkana and hence capable of > bringing > > > maraka > > > > > > results.The navamsha dispositor of shani ,Mars is > > > combust,engaged > > > > > in a > > > > > > planetary war and is also in a bad avastha.Thus we can say > > > Shani is > > > > > very > > > > > > weak.To add, Mars a maraka is having amsha in the 5th from > > > > > lagna,making > > > > > > Putra bhava weak. > > > > > > > > > > > > I have respect for the said astrologers,but those great > > souls > > > may > > > > > also > > > > > > explain to us the reson behind their conclusions as there > is > > no > > > > > Pramana > > > > > > supporting such.It is my personal opinion and you may > follow > > > your > > > > > > conscience.If learned souls can give better explanations i > > am > > > ever > > > > > > prepeared to learn. > > > > > > > > > > > > Can you justify Graha drishti in vargas other then > > Kshethtra.In > > > > > rashi we > > > > > > need not take aspect as a property of varga,rather as a > > > function of > > > > > > planetary placements. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks > > > > > > Pradeep > > > > > > > > > > > > , "crystal pages" > > > <jyotish_vani@> > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pradeepji, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I will drop the 'ji' if you will drop the same when you > > > address > > > > > me. > > > > > > > Even if I may be older, that is not a good enough reason > > to > > > use > > > > > the > > > > > > > suffix, 'ji'. In a sense we are all strangers and > the 'ji' > > if > > > used > > > > > > > has nothing to do with age but out of politeness when we > > speak > > > > > with a > > > > > > > stranger or relatively a stranger. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > About kshetra -- yes that is a better way because then > you > > > would > > > > > be > > > > > > > using exactly the term Parashara has used. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Unfortunately, if kundali or chakra should only be used > > with > > > the > > > > > > > rashi or kshetra varga (and not with the other vargas) -- > > if > > > this > > > > > is > > > > > > > what is being stated then nearly all the jyotishis, > > including > > > Sri > > > > > > > Raman, Sri Rao, Sri Rath, Sri Chowdhri, Sri Bepin Behari > > and > > > > > nearly > > > > > > > every jyotishi, eastern or western, modern of ancient > have > > all > > > > > been > > > > > > > sadly mistaken all their lives because they all used and > > > advocated > > > > > > > use of varga chakras etc. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I find this a very radical concept (not using vargas as > > > chakras) > > > > > > > against that backdrop -- almost comparable to some of the > > very > > > > > > > different values of ayanamsha (as in 10-12 degrees away > > from > > > > > Lahiri > > > > > > > or Raman). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But this is a large tent, I suppose -- afterall zodiacs > 23 > > > degrees > > > > > > > apart can coexist and be effectively used it seems > without > > > nulling > > > > > > > out each other. So why not the framework you and your > > friends > > > are > > > > > > > claiming. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Peace, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > RR > > > > > > > > > > > > > > , "vijayadas_pradeep" > > > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep@ wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Rohini ji > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think i have requested that,you may kindly address me > > > without > > > > > a > > > > > > > > ji.It is more comfortable. > > > > > > > > What i have been saying in simple words is the > > > following.Rashi > > > > > > > Chakra > > > > > > > > is not a varga.But every rashi contains set of > > vargas.The > > > first > > > > > > > varga > > > > > > > > is a Rashi of 30 degree span.Inorder to understand this > > > concept > > > > > > > > properly,i have been stressing to use the word Kshethra > > for > > > the > > > > > > > first > > > > > > > > varga-though Rashi and Kshethra are synonymns. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks > > > > > > > > Pradeep > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > , "crystal pages" > > > > > > > > <jyotish_vani@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Pradeepji, > > > > > > > > > Your statement that rashi contains all amshas is > > > > > astronomically > > > > > > > > > correct. What intrigues me, though, and I think this > > has > > > been > > > > > > > voiced > > > > > > > > > by me earlier is that Parashara described rashi as > one > > of > > > the > > > > > > > vargas > > > > > > > > > and not a separate category which then comprises the > > > > > remaining 15 > > > > > > > > > vargas as described in his BPHS. So I would like to > > think > > > that > > > > > > > Sage > > > > > > > > > was pointing at some degree of (functional) > similarity > > > between > > > > > > > Rashi > > > > > > > > > and other amshas and not one subsumed by another. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > However, in my last email I was not referring to your > > view > > > > > about > > > > > > > > > varga not being part of a chakra, or kundali (as a > > snake, > > > if > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > imagery is permitted), but the fact that you > connected > > the > > > > > > > > > coincidence of rashi tattwas and amsha tattwas, etc. > A > > > similar > > > > > > > > > qualitative link arises between the vargottama state > > which > > > > > links > > > > > > > > > three vargas: rashi, navamsha and drekkana. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > RR > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In > > , "vijayadas_pradeep" > > > > > > > > > <vijayadas_pradeep@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Rohini ji > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I always assumed,my mails as clear,and your mail > > > counters my > > > > > > > beleif. > > > > > > > > > > So it means for the first time i am clear:-). > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for making me learn a lesson.Clear examples > > can > > > drive > > > > > > > home > > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > points better. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dashadhyayi by Thalakkulathu bhattathiri ,says > > > navamshas are > > > > > > > > > > navapranas.Trimshamashas are Chakshuraadi Pancha > > > > > > > > > Jnanendriyas.Saintly > > > > > > > > > > astrological scholars like Bhattathiri having > > > traditional > > > > > > > > > > knowledge,will not write even a word ,which is > > > unauthentic. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thus if we consider rashichakra as a serpent as > > > > > Chandrashekhar > > > > > > > ji > > > > > > > > > has > > > > > > > > > > mentioned,every amsha is not another serpent.But > > they > > > are > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > various > > > > > > > > > > subtle essences which make the serpent > > > active.Altogether we > > > > > > > call > > > > > > > > > them > > > > > > > > > > Rashi chakra.Kshethra /Navamsha etc points to > > individual > > > > > > > aspects. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Shri K.N.Raojis understanding on Karakamsha is > > > conmforming > > > > > to > > > > > > > > > > principles of jyotish is my personal view. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If we ask ,whether the monkey is longer or monkeys > > > tail - > > > > > > > initially > > > > > > > > > we > > > > > > > > > > might be confused.But the vaild point -monkeys > > length is > > > > > > > inclusive > > > > > > > > > of > > > > > > > > > > its tail removes all our confusions. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Similarly Rashi chakra is inclsuive of all the > > amshas. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks > > > > > > > > > > Pradeep > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > , "crystal pages" > > > > > > > > > > <jyotish_vani@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bravo Pradeep, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think you are on to something really > > significant -- > > > now > > > > > > > said in > > > > > > > > > > > words -- shabda and vakkyaas! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Navmasha being the chart view of reality from the > > > tattwic > > > > > > > > > (essential) > > > > > > > > > > > dimension makes sense! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So rashi for the physical, navamsha from the > > essence, > > > the > > > > > > > spirit, > > > > > > > > > as > > > > > > > > > > > the 9th represents, -- kind of like what most of > > us > > > really > > > > > > > > > > > understood, hopefully! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > RR > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In > > > , "vijayadas_pradeep" > > > > > > > > > > > <vijayadas_pradeep@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Hari Namaste > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Take planets Mercury/Mars/Jupiter -placed in > the > > > first > > > > > > > degree > > > > > > > > > of > > > > > > > > > > > > Aries,Mars/Sag respectively.They are physically, > > (OK > > > lets > > > > > > > say > > > > > > > > > > > > relative/apparent) present within the > boundaries > > of > > > > > > > > > > > > Aries/Leo/Sag.Distance between Mars/Mercury is > > 120 > > > > > degrees > > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > > > > > Mars/Jupiter is 240 degrees(Physical > seperation). > > > > > (Apparent > > > > > > > need > > > > > > > > > not > > > > > > > > > > > > be a concern as ,we follow the SAME benchmark > > (w.r to > > > > > earth) > > > > > > > for > > > > > > > > > all > > > > > > > > > > > > Rashi Chakra placements). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Now let us take Navamsha.All the three are > drawn > > as > > > > > > > conjunct in > > > > > > > > > > > > Aries.Do you think it is an apparent > conjunction > > as > > > > > > > above?.Then > > > > > > > > > > > what > > > > > > > > > > > > is navamsha?First 3.2 degrees of any FIRY sign > > is > > > always > > > > > > > > > assigned > > > > > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > > > > > Aries.Any planet placed within this degree span > > will > > > > > relate > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > > > > Aries > > > > > > > > > > > > as navamsha.This is a tattwa based sambandha > and > > > does > > > > > not > > > > > > > > > represent > > > > > > > > > > > > any placement.On the other hand Rashi chakra > > > placement > > > > > is > > > > > > > an > > > > > > > > > > > > astronomically measured value,adjusted for > > ayanamsha > > > > > > > > > > > > correction.Distance/Conjunction in Rashi > chakra - > > > points > > > > > > > towards > > > > > > > > > > > > physical seperation/proximity while navamsha > > points > > > > > towards > > > > > > > > > > > > sambandhas.It has no connection with > > distance.Hope > > > the > > > > > > > > > difference > > > > > > > > > > > is > > > > > > > > > > > > clear this time. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > |om| > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Pradeep, namaste > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > M-W dictionary defines conjunction as given > > below: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > con·junc·tion > > > > > > > > > > > > Function: noun > > > > > > > > > > > > 1 : the act or an instance of conjoining : the > > > state of > > > > > > > being > > > > > > > > > > > > conjoined : > > > > > > > > > > > > 2 : occurrence together in time or space : > > > > > > > > > > > > 3 a : the apparent meeting or passing of two or > > more > > > > > > > celestial > > > > > > > > > > > > bodies in the same degree of the zodiac b : a > > > > > configuration > > > > > > > in > > > > > > > > > > > which > > > > > > > > > > > > two celestial bodies have their least apparent > > > > > separation > > > > > > > > > > > > 4 : an uninflected linguistic form that joins > > > together > > > > > > > > > sentences, > > > > > > > > > > > > clauses, phrases, or words > > > > > > > > > > > > 5 : a complex sentence in logic true if and > only > > if > > > > > each of > > > > > > > its > > > > > > > > > > > > components is true > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Note meaning (3a) above. It says apparent and > not > > > > > PHYSICAL. > > > > > > > > > > > > Physically conjunct is a non-reality. Thus when > > > viewed > > > > > > > against > > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > > backdrop of the rasi, we say that two planets > are > > > > > conjunct > > > > > > > when > > > > > > > > > > > they > > > > > > > > > > > > appear to be in the same rasi. This is apparent > > and > > > not > > > > > > > true in > > > > > > > > > > > > reality. As pointed out earlier, rasi is also > > > > > imaginary; it > > > > > > > has > > > > > > > > > no > > > > > > > > > > > > physical boundaries in space. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The point I am driving at is that when we say > > that > > > two > > > > > > > planets > > > > > > > > > are > > > > > > > > > > > > conjunct in a rasi purely on a non-physical > basis > > > > > > > (apparent), > > > > > > > > > what > > > > > > > > > > > > is wrong with defining similar conjunctions in > > > vargas? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Regarding varga (division) + uttama (best) = > > > > > vargottama, M- > > > > > > > W > > > > > > > > > > > (Monier- > > > > > > > > > > > > Williams) dictionary gives the following > > meanings > > > for > > > > > > > uttama: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > uppermost, highest, chief, most elevated, > > principal, > > > > > best , > > > > > > > > > > > > excellent RV. AV. AitBr. Mn. Pan5cat. &c. > (often > > > ifc. , > > > > > > > e.g. % > > > > > > > > > > > > {dvijo7ttama} , best of the twice-born i.e. a > > > Bra1hman > > > > > Mn.) > > > > > > > > > first, > > > > > > > > > > > > greatest, the highest (tone) the most removed > or > > > last in > > > > > > > place > > > > > > > > > or > > > > > > > > > > > > order or time etc. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > best regards > > > > > > > > > > > > Hari > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 29, 2006 Report Share Posted June 29, 2006 Dear Pradeepji, I am afraid I did not get a clear answer from your post to my question which I repeat through cut and post: > Planet A in 1deg Leo can cast griha drishti on a planet B at 1deg > aquarius fully (drishti kendra) but it can also caste a slightly > weaker drishti if planet C is at 29deg aquarius. > > Is my understanding correct that if there is a planet D at cancer > 29deg, it would not be casting any significant griha drishti on the > planet E at 27deg aquarius? > > A: 1deg Leo rashi > B: 1deg aquarius rashi > C: 29deg aquarius rashi > D: 29deg cancer rashi > E: 27deg aquarius rashi Would you say that the aspect (as in influence) of: planet A on C is the same as of planet D on E? We are simply assuming that these are planets that have one full aspect and we are not worried about the benefic or malefic quality of the influence. We are just curious about the quantum of influence between these two pairs of planets. I do not care if your viewpoint is complete or not or authoritative or final or not -- as I stated, we are just establishing the frameworks of our understanding. Without that how can we discuss in a clear manner any further. Makes sense? And is this a fair question on my part in this case? Thanks RR , "vijayadas_pradeep" <vijayadas_pradeep wrote: > > > Dear Rohini ji > > These are tough questions and i cannot make any authoritative statements > on matters beyond my complete perception. > There is a qualitative as well as quantitative aspect as far as drishtis > are concerned. > > Qualitative is infact the reason for aspect.Thus Mars is having a > qualitative responsibility to aspect bhavas 4th from it.Degrees are for > quantifying the same. > > a)Now for your question - if the said planet is other than Mars,then > there is no qualitative resposnibility to aspect the 8th bhava from > it(that role is not played). > > b)But the grahas are almost opposite and hence there will be significant > infleunces.Thus these aspects can be consdiered for other purposes (say > two malefics aspecting each other) within the chart,than those mentioned > under point a. > > But i will say philosophy and degrees are approximately pointing to the > same.For example , when we say 4th bhava,it always a variable.It depends > on from where we are considering 4th.Thus there is always the same > amount of degrees traversed(approximately).But if 4th bhava is always a > fixed place say always cancer,then degree has no role. > > This is my personal view,and can be corrected. > > Pradeep > , "crystal pages" <jyotish_vani@> > wrote: > > > > Pradeepji, > > > > I think we are still within the thread -- I was trying to focus on > > the question about drishti that you raised. But prior to that I > > wanted to make sure that we are using similar framework for aspects. > > Aspects has been understood and utilized so differently by different > > jyotishis that it was necessary to make sure. > > > > So getting back into what we were discussing, my understanding so far: > > > > Planet A in 1deg Leo can cast griha drishti on a planet B at 1deg > > aquarius fully (drishti kendra) but it can also caste a slightly > > weaker drishti if planet C is at 29deg aquarius. > > > > Is my understanding correct that if there is a planet D at cancer > > 29deg, it would not be casting any significant griha drishti on the > > planet E at 27deg aquarius? > > > > A: 1deg Leo rashi > > B: 1deg aquarius rashi > > C: 29deg aquarius rashi > > D: 29deg cancer rashi > > E: 27deg aquarius rashi > > > > Thanks for your patience and cooperation > > > > RR > > > > > > > > > > > > , "vijayadas_pradeep" > > vijayadas_pradeep@ wrote: > > > > > > Dear Rohini ji > > > > > > I had understood this point in your mind(unequal houses) during the > > > previous mail communication itself.Didn't want to deviate the topic > > > and refrained from commenting. > > > > > > As advised by learned members,like Chandrashekhar ji,i go for equal > > > division. > > > > > > Thus planet at Leo 1d will cast full aspect on Bhava hosted by > > > Aquarius sign.for quantification, intensity will be full at 1 deg > > > Aq.Infleuence is on the bhava,through full aspect. > > > > > > Hoep others will correct,if i am wrong. > > > > > > Pardeep > > > > > > , "crystal pages" > > > <jyotish_vani@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Dear Pradeepji, > > > > > > > > So if I understand you correctly, and to simplify things a bit -- > > > the > > > > planet at 1 degree will be able to (fully) aspect another planet > > > that > > > > is at 29 degrees of the opposite sign. Planet in Leo 1d will > > > aspect > > > > planet in Aquarius 29d, right? > > > > > > > > I want to make sure that the entire sign is considered the > > kshetra > > > > for this aspect. Some people use unequal bhavas and I just wanted > > > to > > > > establish that you consider the entire sign and bhava and not use > > > > some averaging and thus mathematically imprecise house division > > as > > > > sometimes is done. > > > > > > > > Are we on the same page? > > > > > > > > RR > > > > > > > > , "vijayadas_pradeep" > > > > <vijayadas_pradeep@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Rohini ji > > > > > > > > > > Your question is slightly different,though not irrelevant, from > > > our > > > > > original discussion.Our original discussion is about a planet's > > > > > inability to ORIGINATE aspect,from a place WHERE IT IS HAVING > > > > > SAMBANDHA.Your question is about a planets ability to originate > > > and > > > > cast > > > > > aspect FROM ITS POSITION.Block letters are used for > > highlighting > > > the > > > > > difference. > > > > > Now coming to your question - > > > > > As per vedic astrology,Mars can cast full aspects on the > > > 4th,7th > > > > and > > > > > 8th places,from itself.Concept called Drishti Kendra - ie the > > > point > > > > > where a planet can have maximum infleuence,will help us in > > > > understanding > > > > > your example.I feel Mars can have its drishti kendras at > > similar > > > > degrees > > > > > on bhavas,4th, 7th and 8th from its natal degree.Thus at first > > > > degree of > > > > > Vrischika,Kumbha & Meena,Mars will have maximum influence. > > > > > > > > > > Thus Mars can aspect these points(29th degree) as they are > > still > > > > within > > > > > 4th,7th and 8th bhavas from Mars.But at 29th degree,the impact > > > will > > > > be > > > > > of a lesser degree. > > > > > > > > > > Request learned members to correct me. > > > > > > > > > > Thanks > > > > > Pradeep > > > > > , "crystal pages" > > > <jyotish_vani@> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Pradeep ji, > > > > > > > > > > > > regarding griha drishtis -- > > > > > > do you consider mars in the first degree of simha capable of > > > > > > aspecting (in the vedic sense of the term) a planet that is > > in > > > the > > > > > > 29th degree of scorpio, or kumbha or meena? > > > > > > > > > > > > RR > > > > > > > > > > > > , "vijayadas_pradeep" > > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep@ wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Rohini ji > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think without your permission i can add a ji:-) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If we arrange all the first vargas(Kshethras) it is exactly > > > the > > > > > > same as > > > > > > > Rashi chakra.Then what is the difference between, Rashi > > > chakra > > > > and > > > > > > > Kshehtra Sambandhas. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > When we talk of Kshethra as a varga, it is just one > > division > > > > among > > > > > > > numerous divisions.We are not thinking of any other > > > divisions. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Example :Classical shlokas on Lagna lord in Kuja kshethra > > > > > > (irrespective > > > > > > > of whether it is in Aries or Scorpio)giving similar results. > > > (it > > > > is > > > > > > just > > > > > > > one point and we have to consider numerous factors before > > > > arriving > > > > > > at a > > > > > > > conclusion) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On the other hand,when we talk of Rashi chakra - It is the > > > > complete > > > > > > > system with all the sambandhas a planet is having with > > > numerous > > > > > > > Rashis,done during Bhava niroopana. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Example:Lord of 5th house,Shani has attained Mesha > > > navamsha,is > > > > > > aspected > > > > > > > by natural malefic and maraka Kuja,and is in a Kroora > > > > > > shashtyamsha.He is > > > > > > > also the lord of 22nd Drekkana and hence capable of > > bringing > > > > maraka > > > > > > > results.The navamsha dispositor of shani ,Mars is > > > > combust,engaged > > > > > > in a > > > > > > > planetary war and is also in a bad avastha.Thus we can say > > > > Shani is > > > > > > very > > > > > > > weak.To add, Mars a maraka is having amsha in the 5th from > > > > > > lagna,making > > > > > > > Putra bhava weak. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I have respect for the said astrologers,but those great > > > souls > > > > may > > > > > > also > > > > > > > explain to us the reson behind their conclusions as there > > is > > > no > > > > > > Pramana > > > > > > > supporting such.It is my personal opinion and you may > > follow > > > > your > > > > > > > conscience.If learned souls can give better explanations i > > > am > > > > ever > > > > > > > prepeared to learn. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Can you justify Graha drishti in vargas other then > > > Kshethtra.In > > > > > > rashi we > > > > > > > need not take aspect as a property of varga,rather as a > > > > function of > > > > > > > planetary placements. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks > > > > > > > Pradeep > > > > > > > > > > > > > > , "crystal pages" > > > > <jyotish_vani@> > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pradeepji, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I will drop the 'ji' if you will drop the same when you > > > > address > > > > > > me. > > > > > > > > Even if I may be older, that is not a good enough reason > > > to > > > > use > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > suffix, 'ji'. In a sense we are all strangers and > > the 'ji' > > > if > > > > used > > > > > > > > has nothing to do with age but out of politeness when we > > > speak > > > > > > with a > > > > > > > > stranger or relatively a stranger. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > About kshetra -- yes that is a better way because then > > you > > > > would > > > > > > be > > > > > > > > using exactly the term Parashara has used. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Unfortunately, if kundali or chakra should only be used > > > with > > > > the > > > > > > > > rashi or kshetra varga (and not with the other vargas) -- > > > if > > > > this > > > > > > is > > > > > > > > what is being stated then nearly all the jyotishis, > > > including > > > > Sri > > > > > > > > Raman, Sri Rao, Sri Rath, Sri Chowdhri, Sri Bepin Behari > > > and > > > > > > nearly > > > > > > > > every jyotishi, eastern or western, modern of ancient > > have > > > all > > > > > > been > > > > > > > > sadly mistaken all their lives because they all used and > > > > advocated > > > > > > > > use of varga chakras etc. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I find this a very radical concept (not using vargas as > > > > chakras) > > > > > > > > against that backdrop -- almost comparable to some of the > > > very > > > > > > > > different values of ayanamsha (as in 10-12 degrees away > > > from > > > > > > Lahiri > > > > > > > > or Raman). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But this is a large tent, I suppose -- afterall zodiacs > > 23 > > > > degrees > > > > > > > > apart can coexist and be effectively used it seems > > without > > > > nulling > > > > > > > > out each other. So why not the framework you and your > > > friends > > > > are > > > > > > > > claiming. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Peace, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > RR > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > , "vijayadas_pradeep" > > > > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep@ wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Rohini ji > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think i have requested that,you may kindly address me > > > > without > > > > > > a > > > > > > > > > ji.It is more comfortable. > > > > > > > > > What i have been saying in simple words is the > > > > following.Rashi > > > > > > > > Chakra > > > > > > > > > is not a varga.But every rashi contains set of > > > vargas.The > > > > first > > > > > > > > varga > > > > > > > > > is a Rashi of 30 degree span.Inorder to understand this > > > > concept > > > > > > > > > properly,i have been stressing to use the word Kshethra > > > for > > > > the > > > > > > > > first > > > > > > > > > varga-though Rashi and Kshethra are synonymns. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks > > > > > > > > > Pradeep > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > , "crystal pages" > > > > > > > > > <jyotish_vani@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Pradeepji, > > > > > > > > > > Your statement that rashi contains all amshas is > > > > > > astronomically > > > > > > > > > > correct. What intrigues me, though, and I think this > > > has > > > > been > > > > > > > > voiced > > > > > > > > > > by me earlier is that Parashara described rashi as > > one > > > of > > > > the > > > > > > > > vargas > > > > > > > > > > and not a separate category which then comprises the > > > > > > remaining 15 > > > > > > > > > > vargas as described in his BPHS. So I would like to > > > think > > > > that > > > > > > > > Sage > > > > > > > > > > was pointing at some degree of (functional) > > similarity > > > > between > > > > > > > > Rashi > > > > > > > > > > and other amshas and not one subsumed by another. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > However, in my last email I was not referring to your > > > view > > > > > > about > > > > > > > > > > varga not being part of a chakra, or kundali (as a > > > snake, > > > > if > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > imagery is permitted), but the fact that you > > connected > > > the > > > > > > > > > > coincidence of rashi tattwas and amsha tattwas, etc. > > A > > > > similar > > > > > > > > > > qualitative link arises between the vargottama state > > > which > > > > > > links > > > > > > > > > > three vargas: rashi, navamsha and drekkana. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > RR > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In > > > , "vijayadas_pradeep" > > > > > > > > > > <vijayadas_pradeep@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Rohini ji > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I always assumed,my mails as clear,and your mail > > > > counters my > > > > > > > > beleif. > > > > > > > > > > > So it means for the first time i am clear:-). > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for making me learn a lesson.Clear examples > > > can > > > > drive > > > > > > > > home > > > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > points better. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dashadhyayi by Thalakkulathu bhattathiri ,says > > > > navamshas are > > > > > > > > > > > navapranas.Trimshamashas are Chakshuraadi Pancha > > > > > > > > > > Jnanendriyas.Saintly > > > > > > > > > > > astrological scholars like Bhattathiri having > > > > traditional > > > > > > > > > > > knowledge,will not write even a word ,which is > > > > unauthentic. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thus if we consider rashichakra as a serpent as > > > > > > Chandrashekhar > > > > > > > > ji > > > > > > > > > > has > > > > > > > > > > > mentioned,every amsha is not another serpent.But > > > they > > > > are > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > various > > > > > > > > > > > subtle essences which make the serpent > > > > active.Altogether we > > > > > > > > call > > > > > > > > > > them > > > > > > > > > > > Rashi chakra.Kshethra /Navamsha etc points to > > > individual > > > > > > > > aspects. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Shri K.N.Raojis understanding on Karakamsha is > > > > conmforming > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > > > > principles of jyotish is my personal view. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If we ask ,whether the monkey is longer or monkeys > > > > tail - > > > > > > > > initially > > > > > > > > > > we > > > > > > > > > > > might be confused.But the vaild point -monkeys > > > length is > > > > > > > > inclusive > > > > > > > > > > of > > > > > > > > > > > its tail removes all our confusions. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Similarly Rashi chakra is inclsuive of all the > > > amshas. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks > > > > > > > > > > > Pradeep > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > , "crystal pages" > > > > > > > > > > > <jyotish_vani@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bravo Pradeep, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think you are on to something really > > > significant -- > > > > now > > > > > > > > said in > > > > > > > > > > > > words -- shabda and vakkyaas! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Navmasha being the chart view of reality from the > > > > tattwic > > > > > > > > > > (essential) > > > > > > > > > > > > dimension makes sense! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So rashi for the physical, navamsha from the > > > essence, > > > > the > > > > > > > > spirit, > > > > > > > > > > as > > > > > > > > > > > > the 9th represents, -- kind of like what most of > > > us > > > > really > > > > > > > > > > > > understood, hopefully! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > RR > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In > > > > , "vijayadas_pradeep" > > > > > > > > > > > > <vijayadas_pradeep@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Hari Namaste > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Take planets Mercury/Mars/Jupiter -placed in > > the > > > > first > > > > > > > > degree > > > > > > > > > > of > > > > > > > > > > > > > Aries,Mars/Sag respectively.They are physically, > > > (OK > > > > lets > > > > > > > > say > > > > > > > > > > > > > relative/apparent) present within the > > boundaries > > > of > > > > > > > > > > > > > Aries/Leo/Sag.Distance between Mars/Mercury is > > > 120 > > > > > > degrees > > > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mars/Jupiter is 240 degrees(Physical > > seperation). > > > > > > (Apparent > > > > > > > > need > > > > > > > > > > not > > > > > > > > > > > > > be a concern as ,we follow the SAME benchmark > > > (w.r to > > > > > > earth) > > > > > > > > for > > > > > > > > > > all > > > > > > > > > > > > > Rashi Chakra placements). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Now let us take Navamsha.All the three are > > drawn > > > as > > > > > > > > conjunct in > > > > > > > > > > > > > Aries.Do you think it is an apparent > > conjunction > > > as > > > > > > > > above?.Then > > > > > > > > > > > > what > > > > > > > > > > > > > is navamsha?First 3.2 degrees of any FIRY sign > > > is > > > > always > > > > > > > > > > assigned > > > > > > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > > > > > > Aries.Any planet placed within this degree span > > > will > > > > > > relate > > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > > > > > Aries > > > > > > > > > > > > > as navamsha.This is a tattwa based sambandha > > and > > > > does > > > > > > not > > > > > > > > > > represent > > > > > > > > > > > > > any placement.On the other hand Rashi chakra > > > > placement > > > > > > is > > > > > > > > an > > > > > > > > > > > > > astronomically measured value,adjusted for > > > ayanamsha > > > > > > > > > > > > > correction.Distance/Conjunction in Rashi > > chakra - > > > > points > > > > > > > > towards > > > > > > > > > > > > > physical seperation/proximity while navamsha > > > points > > > > > > towards > > > > > > > > > > > > > sambandhas.It has no connection with > > > distance.Hope > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > difference > > > > > > > > > > > > is > > > > > > > > > > > > > clear this time. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > |om| > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Pradeep, namaste > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > M-W dictionary defines conjunction as given > > > below: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > con·junc·tion > > > > > > > > > > > > > Function: noun > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1 : the act or an instance of conjoining : the > > > > state of > > > > > > > > being > > > > > > > > > > > > > conjoined : > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2 : occurrence together in time or space : > > > > > > > > > > > > > 3 a : the apparent meeting or passing of two or > > > more > > > > > > > > celestial > > > > > > > > > > > > > bodies in the same degree of the zodiac b : a > > > > > > configuration > > > > > > > > in > > > > > > > > > > > > which > > > > > > > > > > > > > two celestial bodies have their least apparent > > > > > > separation > > > > > > > > > > > > > 4 : an uninflected linguistic form that joins > > > > together > > > > > > > > > > sentences, > > > > > > > > > > > > > clauses, phrases, or words > > > > > > > > > > > > > 5 : a complex sentence in logic true if and > > only > > > if > > > > > > each of > > > > > > > > its > > > > > > > > > > > > > components is true > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Note meaning (3a) above. It says apparent and > > not > > > > > > PHYSICAL. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Physically conjunct is a non-reality. Thus when > > > > viewed > > > > > > > > against > > > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > > > backdrop of the rasi, we say that two planets > > are > > > > > > conjunct > > > > > > > > when > > > > > > > > > > > > they > > > > > > > > > > > > > appear to be in the same rasi. This is apparent > > > and > > > > not > > > > > > > > true in > > > > > > > > > > > > > reality. As pointed out earlier, rasi is also > > > > > > imaginary; it > > > > > > > > has > > > > > > > > > > no > > > > > > > > > > > > > physical boundaries in space. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The point I am driving at is that when we say > > > that > > > > two > > > > > > > > planets > > > > > > > > > > are > > > > > > > > > > > > > conjunct in a rasi purely on a non-physical > > basis > > > > > > > > (apparent), > > > > > > > > > > what > > > > > > > > > > > > > is wrong with defining similar conjunctions in > > > > vargas? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Regarding varga (division) + uttama (best) = > > > > > > vargottama, M- > > > > > > > > W > > > > > > > > > > > > (Monier- > > > > > > > > > > > > > Williams) dictionary gives the following > > > meanings > > > > for > > > > > > > > uttama: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > uppermost, highest, chief, most elevated, > > > principal, > > > > > > best , > > > > > > > > > > > > > excellent RV. AV. AitBr. Mn. Pan5cat. &c. > > (often > > > > ifc. , > > > > > > > > e.g. % > > > > > > > > > > > > > {dvijo7ttama} , best of the twice-born i.e. a > > > > Bra1hman > > > > > > Mn.) > > > > > > > > > > first, > > > > > > > > > > > > > greatest, the highest (tone) the most removed > > or > > > > last in > > > > > > > > place > > > > > > > > > > or > > > > > > > > > > > > > order or time etc. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > best regards > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hari > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 11, 2006 Report Share Posted July 11, 2006 Dear Rohini ji Sorry for the delayed reply. After understanding this very well,i can try for a detailed answer. Pradeep , "crystal pages" <jyotish_vani wrote: > > Dear Pradeepji, > > I am afraid I did not get a clear answer from your post to my > question which I repeat through cut and post: > > Planet A in 1deg Leo can cast griha drishti on a planet B at 1deg > > aquarius fully (drishti kendra) but it can also caste a slightly > > weaker drishti if planet C is at 29deg aquarius. > > > > Is my understanding correct that if there is a planet D at cancer > > 29deg, it would not be casting any significant griha drishti on the > > planet E at 27deg aquarius? > > > > A: 1deg Leo rashi > > B: 1deg aquarius rashi > > C: 29deg aquarius rashi > > D: 29deg cancer rashi > > E: 27deg aquarius rashi > > Would you say that the aspect (as in influence) of: > planet A on C is the same as of planet D on E? > > We are simply assuming that these are planets that have one full > aspect and we are not worried about the benefic or malefic quality of > the influence. We are just curious about the quantum of influence > between these two pairs of planets. > > I do not care if your viewpoint is complete or not or authoritative > or final or not -- as I stated, we are just establishing the > frameworks of our understanding. Without that how can we discuss in a > clear manner any further. Makes sense? And is this a fair question on > my part in this case? > > Thanks > > RR > , "vijayadas_pradeep" > <vijayadas_pradeep@> wrote: > > > > > > Dear Rohini ji > > > > These are tough questions and i cannot make any authoritative > statements > > on matters beyond my complete perception. > > There is a qualitative as well as quantitative aspect as far as > drishtis > > are concerned. > > > > Qualitative is infact the reason for aspect.Thus Mars is having a > > qualitative responsibility to aspect bhavas 4th from it.Degrees are > for > > quantifying the same. > > > > a)Now for your question - if the said planet is other than Mars,then > > there is no qualitative resposnibility to aspect the 8th bhava from > > it(that role is not played). > > > > b)But the grahas are almost opposite and hence there will be > significant > > infleunces.Thus these aspects can be consdiered for other purposes > (say > > two malefics aspecting each other) within the chart,than those > mentioned > > under point a. > > > > But i will say philosophy and degrees are approximately pointing to > the > > same.For example , when we say 4th bhava,it always a variable.It > depends > > on from where we are considering 4th.Thus there is always the same > > amount of degrees traversed(approximately).But if 4th bhava is > always a > > fixed place say always cancer,then degree has no role. > > > > This is my personal view,and can be corrected. > > > > Pradeep > > , "crystal pages" <jyotish_vani@> > > wrote: > > > > > > Pradeepji, > > > > > > I think we are still within the thread -- I was trying to focus on > > > the question about drishti that you raised. But prior to that I > > > wanted to make sure that we are using similar framework for > aspects. > > > Aspects has been understood and utilized so differently by > different > > > jyotishis that it was necessary to make sure. > > > > > > So getting back into what we were discussing, my understanding so > far: > > > > > > Planet A in 1deg Leo can cast griha drishti on a planet B at 1deg > > > aquarius fully (drishti kendra) but it can also caste a slightly > > > weaker drishti if planet C is at 29deg aquarius. > > > > > > Is my understanding correct that if there is a planet D at cancer > > > 29deg, it would not be casting any significant griha drishti on > the > > > planet E at 27deg aquarius? > > > > > > A: 1deg Leo rashi > > > B: 1deg aquarius rashi > > > C: 29deg aquarius rashi > > > D: 29deg cancer rashi > > > E: 27deg aquarius rashi > > > > > > Thanks for your patience and cooperation > > > > > > RR > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > , "vijayadas_pradeep" > > > vijayadas_pradeep@ wrote: > > > > > > > > Dear Rohini ji > > > > > > > > I had understood this point in your mind(unequal houses) during > the > > > > previous mail communication itself.Didn't want to deviate the > topic > > > > and refrained from commenting. > > > > > > > > As advised by learned members,like Chandrashekhar ji,i go for > equal > > > > division. > > > > > > > > Thus planet at Leo 1d will cast full aspect on Bhava hosted by > > > > Aquarius sign.for quantification, intensity will be full at 1 > deg > > > > Aq.Infleuence is on the bhava,through full aspect. > > > > > > > > Hoep others will correct,if i am wrong. > > > > > > > > Pardeep > > > > > > > > , "crystal pages" > > > > <jyotish_vani@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Dear Pradeepji, > > > > > > > > > > So if I understand you correctly, and to simplify things a > bit -- > > > > the > > > > > planet at 1 degree will be able to (fully) aspect another > planet > > > > that > > > > > is at 29 degrees of the opposite sign. Planet in Leo 1d will > > > > aspect > > > > > planet in Aquarius 29d, right? > > > > > > > > > > I want to make sure that the entire sign is considered the > > > kshetra > > > > > for this aspect. Some people use unequal bhavas and I just > wanted > > > > to > > > > > establish that you consider the entire sign and bhava and not > use > > > > > some averaging and thus mathematically imprecise house > division > > > as > > > > > sometimes is done. > > > > > > > > > > Are we on the same page? > > > > > > > > > > RR > > > > > > > > > > , "vijayadas_pradeep" > > > > > <vijayadas_pradeep@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Rohini ji > > > > > > > > > > > > Your question is slightly different,though not irrelevant, > from > > > > our > > > > > > original discussion.Our original discussion is about a > planet's > > > > > > inability to ORIGINATE aspect,from a place WHERE IT IS > HAVING > > > > > > SAMBANDHA.Your question is about a planets ability to > originate > > > > and > > > > > cast > > > > > > aspect FROM ITS POSITION.Block letters are used for > > > highlighting > > > > the > > > > > > difference. > > > > > > Now coming to your question - > > > > > > As per vedic astrology,Mars can cast full aspects on the > > > > 4th,7th > > > > > and > > > > > > 8th places,from itself.Concept called Drishti Kendra - ie > the > > > > point > > > > > > where a planet can have maximum infleuence,will help us in > > > > > understanding > > > > > > your example.I feel Mars can have its drishti kendras at > > > similar > > > > > degrees > > > > > > on bhavas,4th, 7th and 8th from its natal degree.Thus at > first > > > > > degree of > > > > > > Vrischika,Kumbha & Meena,Mars will have maximum influence. > > > > > > > > > > > > Thus Mars can aspect these points(29th degree) as they are > > > still > > > > > within > > > > > > 4th,7th and 8th bhavas from Mars.But at 29th degree,the > impact > > > > will > > > > > be > > > > > > of a lesser degree. > > > > > > > > > > > > Request learned members to correct me. > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks > > > > > > Pradeep > > > > > > , "crystal pages" > > > > <jyotish_vani@> > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Pradeep ji, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > regarding griha drishtis -- > > > > > > > do you consider mars in the first degree of simha capable > of > > > > > > > aspecting (in the vedic sense of the term) a planet that > is > > > in > > > > the > > > > > > > 29th degree of scorpio, or kumbha or meena? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > RR > > > > > > > > > > > > > > , "vijayadas_pradeep" > > > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep@ wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Rohini ji > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think without your permission i can add a ji:-) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If we arrange all the first vargas(Kshethras) it is > exactly > > > > the > > > > > > > same as > > > > > > > > Rashi chakra.Then what is the difference between, Rashi > > > > chakra > > > > > and > > > > > > > > Kshehtra Sambandhas. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > When we talk of Kshethra as a varga, it is just one > > > division > > > > > among > > > > > > > > numerous divisions.We are not thinking of any other > > > > divisions. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Example :Classical shlokas on Lagna lord in Kuja > kshethra > > > > > > > (irrespective > > > > > > > > of whether it is in Aries or Scorpio)giving similar > results. > > > > (it > > > > > is > > > > > > > just > > > > > > > > one point and we have to consider numerous factors > before > > > > > arriving > > > > > > > at a > > > > > > > > conclusion) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On the other hand,when we talk of Rashi chakra - It is > the > > > > > complete > > > > > > > > system with all the sambandhas a planet is having with > > > > numerous > > > > > > > > Rashis,done during Bhava niroopana. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Example:Lord of 5th house,Shani has attained Mesha > > > > navamsha,is > > > > > > > aspected > > > > > > > > by natural malefic and maraka Kuja,and is in a Kroora > > > > > > > shashtyamsha.He is > > > > > > > > also the lord of 22nd Drekkana and hence capable of > > > bringing > > > > > maraka > > > > > > > > results.The navamsha dispositor of shani ,Mars is > > > > > combust,engaged > > > > > > > in a > > > > > > > > planetary war and is also in a bad avastha.Thus we can > say > > > > > Shani is > > > > > > > very > > > > > > > > weak.To add, Mars a maraka is having amsha in the 5th > from > > > > > > > lagna,making > > > > > > > > Putra bhava weak. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I have respect for the said astrologers,but those great > > > > souls > > > > > may > > > > > > > also > > > > > > > > explain to us the reson behind their conclusions as > there > > > is > > > > no > > > > > > > Pramana > > > > > > > > supporting such.It is my personal opinion and you may > > > follow > > > > > your > > > > > > > > conscience.If learned souls can give better > explanations i > > > > am > > > > > ever > > > > > > > > prepeared to learn. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Can you justify Graha drishti in vargas other then > > > > Kshethtra.In > > > > > > > rashi we > > > > > > > > need not take aspect as a property of varga,rather as a > > > > > function of > > > > > > > > planetary placements. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks > > > > > > > > Pradeep > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > , "crystal pages" > > > > > <jyotish_vani@> > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pradeepji, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I will drop the 'ji' if you will drop the same when > you > > > > > address > > > > > > > me. > > > > > > > > > Even if I may be older, that is not a good enough > reason > > > > to > > > > > use > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > suffix, 'ji'. In a sense we are all strangers and > > > the 'ji' > > > > if > > > > > used > > > > > > > > > has nothing to do with age but out of politeness when > we > > > > speak > > > > > > > with a > > > > > > > > > stranger or relatively a stranger. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > About kshetra -- yes that is a better way because then > > > you > > > > > would > > > > > > > be > > > > > > > > > using exactly the term Parashara has used. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Unfortunately, if kundali or chakra should only be > used > > > > with > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > rashi or kshetra varga (and not with the other > vargas) -- > > > > if > > > > > this > > > > > > > is > > > > > > > > > what is being stated then nearly all the jyotishis, > > > > including > > > > > Sri > > > > > > > > > Raman, Sri Rao, Sri Rath, Sri Chowdhri, Sri Bepin > Behari > > > > and > > > > > > > nearly > > > > > > > > > every jyotishi, eastern or western, modern of ancient > > > have > > > > all > > > > > > > been > > > > > > > > > sadly mistaken all their lives because they all used > and > > > > > advocated > > > > > > > > > use of varga chakras etc. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I find this a very radical concept (not using vargas > as > > > > > chakras) > > > > > > > > > against that backdrop -- almost comparable to some of > the > > > > very > > > > > > > > > different values of ayanamsha (as in 10-12 degrees > away > > > > from > > > > > > > Lahiri > > > > > > > > > or Raman). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But this is a large tent, I suppose -- afterall > zodiacs > > > 23 > > > > > degrees > > > > > > > > > apart can coexist and be effectively used it seems > > > without > > > > > nulling > > > > > > > > > out each other. So why not the framework you and your > > > > friends > > > > > are > > > > > > > > > claiming. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Peace, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > RR > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > , "vijayadas_pradeep" > > > > > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep@ wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Rohini ji > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think i have requested that,you may kindly > address me > > > > > without > > > > > > > a > > > > > > > > > > ji.It is more comfortable. > > > > > > > > > > What i have been saying in simple words is the > > > > > following.Rashi > > > > > > > > > Chakra > > > > > > > > > > is not a varga.But every rashi contains set of > > > > vargas.The > > > > > first > > > > > > > > > varga > > > > > > > > > > is a Rashi of 30 degree span.Inorder to understand > this > > > > > concept > > > > > > > > > > properly,i have been stressing to use the word > Kshethra > > > > for > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > first > > > > > > > > > > varga-though Rashi and Kshethra are synonymns. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks > > > > > > > > > > Pradeep > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > , "crystal pages" > > > > > > > > > > <jyotish_vani@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Pradeepji, > > > > > > > > > > > Your statement that rashi contains all amshas is > > > > > > > astronomically > > > > > > > > > > > correct. What intrigues me, though, and I think > this > > > > has > > > > > been > > > > > > > > > voiced > > > > > > > > > > > by me earlier is that Parashara described rashi as > > > one > > > > of > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > vargas > > > > > > > > > > > and not a separate category which then comprises > the > > > > > > > remaining 15 > > > > > > > > > > > vargas as described in his BPHS. So I would like > to > > > > think > > > > > that > > > > > > > > > Sage > > > > > > > > > > > was pointing at some degree of (functional) > > > similarity > > > > > between > > > > > > > > > Rashi > > > > > > > > > > > and other amshas and not one subsumed by another. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > However, in my last email I was not referring to > your > > > > view > > > > > > > about > > > > > > > > > > > varga not being part of a chakra, or kundali (as a > > > > snake, > > > > > if > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > imagery is permitted), but the fact that you > > > connected > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > coincidence of rashi tattwas and amsha tattwas, > etc. > > > A > > > > > similar > > > > > > > > > > > qualitative link arises between the vargottama > state > > > > which > > > > > > > links > > > > > > > > > > > three vargas: rashi, navamsha and drekkana. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > RR > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In > > > > , "vijayadas_pradeep" > > > > > > > > > > > <vijayadas_pradeep@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Rohini ji > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I always assumed,my mails as clear,and your mail > > > > > counters my > > > > > > > > > beleif. > > > > > > > > > > > > So it means for the first time i am clear:-). > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for making me learn a lesson.Clear > examples > > > > can > > > > > drive > > > > > > > > > home > > > > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > > points better. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dashadhyayi by Thalakkulathu bhattathiri ,says > > > > > navamshas are > > > > > > > > > > > > navapranas.Trimshamashas are Chakshuraadi Pancha > > > > > > > > > > > Jnanendriyas.Saintly > > > > > > > > > > > > astrological scholars like Bhattathiri having > > > > > traditional > > > > > > > > > > > > knowledge,will not write even a word ,which is > > > > > unauthentic. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thus if we consider rashichakra as a serpent as > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar > > > > > > > > > ji > > > > > > > > > > > has > > > > > > > > > > > > mentioned,every amsha is not another serpent.But > > > > they > > > > > are > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > various > > > > > > > > > > > > subtle essences which make the serpent > > > > > active.Altogether we > > > > > > > > > call > > > > > > > > > > > them > > > > > > > > > > > > Rashi chakra.Kshethra /Navamsha etc points to > > > > individual > > > > > > > > > aspects. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Shri K.N.Raojis understanding on Karakamsha is > > > > > conmforming > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > > > > > principles of jyotish is my personal view. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If we ask ,whether the monkey is longer or > monkeys > > > > > tail - > > > > > > > > > initially > > > > > > > > > > > we > > > > > > > > > > > > might be confused.But the vaild point -monkeys > > > > length is > > > > > > > > > inclusive > > > > > > > > > > > of > > > > > > > > > > > > its tail removes all our confusions. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Similarly Rashi chakra is inclsuive of all the > > > > amshas. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks > > > > > > > > > > > > Pradeep > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > , "crystal > pages" > > > > > > > > > > > > <jyotish_vani@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bravo Pradeep, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think you are on to something really > > > > significant -- > > > > > now > > > > > > > > > said in > > > > > > > > > > > > > words -- shabda and vakkyaas! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Navmasha being the chart view of reality from > the > > > > > tattwic > > > > > > > > > > > (essential) > > > > > > > > > > > > > dimension makes sense! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So rashi for the physical, navamsha from the > > > > essence, > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > spirit, > > > > > > > > > > > as > > > > > > > > > > > > > the 9th represents, -- kind of like what most > of > > > > us > > > > > really > > > > > > > > > > > > > understood, hopefully! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > RR > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In > > > > > , "vijayadas_pradeep" > > > > > > > > > > > > > <vijayadas_pradeep@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Hari Namaste > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Take planets Mercury/Mars/Jupiter -placed in > > > the > > > > > first > > > > > > > > > degree > > > > > > > > > > > of > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Aries,Mars/Sag respectively.They are > physically, > > > > (OK > > > > > lets > > > > > > > > > say > > > > > > > > > > > > > > relative/apparent) present within the > > > boundaries > > > > of > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Aries/Leo/Sag.Distance between Mars/Mercury > is > > > > 120 > > > > > > > degrees > > > > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mars/Jupiter is 240 degrees(Physical > > > seperation). > > > > > > > (Apparent > > > > > > > > > need > > > > > > > > > > > not > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be a concern as ,we follow the SAME > benchmark > > > > (w.r to > > > > > > > earth) > > > > > > > > > for > > > > > > > > > > > all > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Rashi Chakra placements). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Now let us take Navamsha.All the three are > > > drawn > > > > as > > > > > > > > > conjunct in > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Aries.Do you think it is an apparent > > > conjunction > > > > as > > > > > > > > > above?.Then > > > > > > > > > > > > > what > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is navamsha?First 3.2 degrees of any FIRY > sign > > > > is > > > > > always > > > > > > > > > > > assigned > > > > > > > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Aries.Any planet placed within this degree > span > > > > will > > > > > > > relate > > > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > > > > > > Aries > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as navamsha.This is a tattwa based sambandha > > > and > > > > > does > > > > > > > not > > > > > > > > > > > represent > > > > > > > > > > > > > > any placement.On the other hand Rashi chakra > > > > > placement > > > > > > > is > > > > > > > > > an > > > > > > > > > > > > > > astronomically measured value,adjusted for > > > > ayanamsha > > > > > > > > > > > > > > correction.Distance/Conjunction in Rashi > > > chakra - > > > > > points > > > > > > > > > towards > > > > > > > > > > > > > > physical seperation/proximity while navamsha > > > > points > > > > > > > towards > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sambandhas.It has no connection with > > > > distance.Hope > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > difference > > > > > > > > > > > > > is > > > > > > > > > > > > > > clear this time. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > |om| > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Pradeep, namaste > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > M-W dictionary defines conjunction as given > > > > below: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > con·junc·tion > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Function: noun > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1 : the act or an instance of conjoining : > the > > > > > state of > > > > > > > > > being > > > > > > > > > > > > > > conjoined : > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2 : occurrence together in time or space : > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 3 a : the apparent meeting or passing of > two or > > > > more > > > > > > > > > celestial > > > > > > > > > > > > > > bodies in the same degree of the zodiac b : > a > > > > > > > configuration > > > > > > > > > in > > > > > > > > > > > > > which > > > > > > > > > > > > > > two celestial bodies have their least > apparent > > > > > > > separation > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 4 : an uninflected linguistic form that > joins > > > > > together > > > > > > > > > > > sentences, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > clauses, phrases, or words > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 5 : a complex sentence in logic true if and > > > only > > > > if > > > > > > > each of > > > > > > > > > its > > > > > > > > > > > > > > components is true > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Note meaning (3a) above. It says apparent > and > > > not > > > > > > > PHYSICAL. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Physically conjunct is a non-reality. Thus > when > > > > > viewed > > > > > > > > > against > > > > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > backdrop of the rasi, we say that two > planets > > > are > > > > > > > conjunct > > > > > > > > > when > > > > > > > > > > > > > they > > > > > > > > > > > > > > appear to be in the same rasi. This is > apparent > > > > and > > > > > not > > > > > > > > > true in > > > > > > > > > > > > > > reality. As pointed out earlier, rasi is > also > > > > > > > imaginary; it > > > > > > > > > has > > > > > > > > > > > no > > > > > > > > > > > > > > physical boundaries in space. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The point I am driving at is that when we > say > > > > that > > > > > two > > > > > > > > > planets > > > > > > > > > > > are > > > > > > > > > > > > > > conjunct in a rasi purely on a non-physical > > > basis > > > > > > > > > (apparent), > > > > > > > > > > > what > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is wrong with defining similar conjunctions > in > > > > > vargas? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Regarding varga (division) + uttama (best) = > > > > > > > vargottama, M- > > > > > > > > > W > > > > > > > > > > > > > (Monier- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Williams) dictionary gives the following > > > > meanings > > > > > for > > > > > > > > > uttama: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > uppermost, highest, chief, most elevated, > > > > principal, > > > > > > > best , > > > > > > > > > > > > > > excellent RV. AV. AitBr. Mn. Pan5cat. &c. > > > (often > > > > > ifc. , > > > > > > > > > e.g. % > > > > > > > > > > > > > > {dvijo7ttama} , best of the twice-born i.e. > a > > > > > Bra1hman > > > > > > > Mn.) > > > > > > > > > > > first, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > greatest, the highest (tone) the most > removed > > > or > > > > > last in > > > > > > > > > place > > > > > > > > > > > or > > > > > > > > > > > > > > order or time etc. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > best regards > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hari > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.