Why Navamsa Chart is so important?

[Guest guest]

Hi Sushmita,

 

Very well said. The presentation of case studies in its predictive application

(both ways - proving other's notions wrong and proving their interpretation

through predictions) is the only way forward.

 

I am waiting with open mind, for Pradeep to put forward his interpretation model

- of course in his timne schedule (as he has promised).

 

regards / Prafulla Gang

http://www.prafulla.net

 

" Men who never get carried away should be. "

************************************************

 

 

>

> sushmita34

> Sat, 07 Jul 2007 06:21:21 -0000

>

> Re: Why Navamsa Chart is so important?

>

> Hi Krishna,

>

> Seems you have a logical & balanced head above your shoulder.

> I too think the best way is to test it and not debate endlessly. I was

> once given a simple piece of advice, if K.N.Rao uses a method he has not

> tested it on 1 chart or read shlokas, he has tested it minimum on 50,000

> charts over a period of years before he even talks about it or writes

> about it. I would not blindly follow what Shri Rao says but would myself

> test it and have often found most ideas working that he has put forth.

> Unfortunately we find most astrologers only debate, debate, debate but

> do not test it on many charts.

>

>

> Regards,

> Sushmita

>

>

>

>

>

> , Krishnamurthy Seetharama

> <krishna_1998 wrote:

>>

>> Dear Kolachina ji,

>>

>> Yes, I agree with you. It appears that this debate will go on

>> till both sides get tired. I am pretty clear about the path I

>> have chosen. It works for me and that is what matters the most.

>> I give more importance to what the charts indicate than what is

>> said in the texts (By no way I am disrespecting our sages by

>> saying this, because it is possible that we have not understood

>> them correctly). I believe that Truth lies in reality and and

>> reality lies in the charts. And, I have seen that the relations

>> of planets in Navamsha play an important role. I don't need more

>> evidence. When I raised the question, I was not looking for

>> evidence, I only wanted to understand the reasons behind such a

>> reality. But, I failed to get the answer.

>>

>> Regards,

>> Krishna

>>

>>

>> --- Satya Sai Kolachina skolachi wrote:

>>

>>> Dear Sri Krishnamurthy,

>>>

>>> This debate is never ending; since astrologers arguing on

>>> either side

>>> are strong in their opinions. It is upto the observers to

>>> decide

>>> which way to go, as you decided in your message below.

>>>

>>> But, it does not simply mean that those who do not reply are

>>> agreeing

>>> to the others message. I stopped interacting, as I have

>>> understood

>>> both sides arguments and made my own observation. Whatever I

>>> had to

>>> contribute I said in my two mails. I don't think this is ever

>>> going

>>> to end. If you are interested, please refer to the archives in

>>> this

>>> group, around a year and half ago; there was similar debate

>>> between

>>> Sri Vijaydas Pradeep (against the Navamsa or amsa charts in

>>> general)

>>> and Sri PVR Narasimha Rao (in support of the Navamsa or amsa

>>> charts

>>> in general). Both are learned, respected astrologers and have

>>> their

>>> own merits. This debate is not going to end, as it happened in

>>> the

>>> past. It only ends when people are one side are tired of

>>> arguing.

>>>

>>> A healthy debate is one where both the parties present their

>>> opinions, without giving a chance to anticipate credit for

>>> something

>>> they propose, or what they understood. WHen the credit is due,

>>> it

>>> automatically comes, according to astrology. Since we are all

>>> learners, this approach will bring out good aspects of the

>>> debate and

>>> the subject being debated; as we have been observing from the

>>> discussion from Sri Vijaydas Pradeep and Sri Chandrasekhar.

>>>

>>> I personally think the debate is not going to end, since both

>>> of them

>>> are strong in their opinions and I take value in both the

>>> views.

>>>

>>> Best regards,

>>>

>>> Satya S Kolachina

>>>

>>>

>>> , Krishnamurthy Seetharama

>>> krishna_1998@ wrote:

>>>>

>>>> Dear All,

>>>>

>>>> As I was the one who started this thread, I must say that

>>> the

>>>> debate reamins inconclusive.

>>>>

>>>> It makes logical sense to say that one should not use

>>> aspects,

>>>> conjunctions etc. in D-charts as we are looking only at

>>> logical

>>>> positions of planets and not their physical positions like

>>> in

>>>> the Rasi chart. But, then why so many learned people who

>>> have

>>>> done succesful predictions consider aspects and conjunctions

>>> in

>>>> D-charts? Let me forget about all the other D-charts for now

>>> and

>>>> let me stick to only Navamsha as that is what we are

>>> discussing

>>>> in this thread.

>>>>

>>>> In mind, based on my learning, I felt that Navamsha charts

>>> are

>>>> at a different plane as compared to other D-charts and hence

>>> it

>>>> is allowed to look at aspects and conjunctions only in

>>> Navamsha

>>>> and not in other D-Charts. I wanted to know the reasoning

>>> behind

>>>> this special treatment to Navamsha chart and hence raised

>>> this

>>>> question.

>>>>

>>>> I started learning Jyotish using Shri. B V Raman's books. He

>>>> uses Navamsa Chart like Rasi Chart for all practical

>>> purposes.

>>>> He has been considered as one of the pioneers in modern day

>>>> Astrology.

>>>>

>>>> I tend to agree with Prafulla. After all, why do we study

>>> this

>>>> science? The answer for me is that it shows the light and

>>> guides

>>>> me in my life. Hence, preditive part of the science is as of

>>>> paramount importance. I guess the only way to resolve this

>>>> deadlock is to take a bunch of charts (with reasonably

>>> accurate

>>>> birth data) and study them with and without using aspects

>>> and

>>>> conjunctions in Navamsha and explain the major events in

>>> life.

>>>>

>>>> I see no other way to end this debate.

>>>>

>>>> Regards,

>>>> Krishna

>>>>

>>>>

>>>> --- Prafulla Gang jyotish@ wrote:

>>>>

>>>>> Dear Sreenadh ji

>>>>>

>>>>> Well - who knows the truth? - Should the person making

>>>>> comment, be construed to be as truth seeker - until they

>>> prove

>>>>> with the application of the principles on the charts (

>>> both

>>>>> ways - firstly the wrong application of others; and

>>> secondly

>>>>> how to read in correct way). Theorists without predictive

>>>>> support - has little relevance in jyotish. But yes - if

>>> you

>>>>> can justify your statements by case studies - then at

>>> least, I

>>>>> will hear with open mind.

>>>>>

>>>>> Understandably, I have been quoted to be " blind " to

>>>>> commentaries - but my submission is that - give me one

>>> reason

>>>>> to accept the views of " less read scholars " than to " well

>>> read

>>>>> scholars like Late Santhanam / Shri KN Rao / Shri Sanjay

>>> rath

>>>>> / many others " . and More so - as I do not " pretend " to

>>> know

>>>>> the sanskrit and do not " waste " my time on " shloka

>>> business "

>>>>> with my " incomplete knowledge " . So I am happy to be

>>> following

>>>>> better quality commentaries - who are expalining with the

>>> case

>>>>> studies.

>>>>>

>>>>> Of course - each one makes his choice.

>>>>>

>>>>>

>>>>> regards / Prafulla Gang

>>>>> http://www.prafulla.net

>>>>>

>>>>> " Men who never get carried away should be. "

>>>>> ************************************************

>>>>>

>>>>>

>>>>>>

>>>>>> sreesog@

>>>>>> Thu, 05 Jul 2007 07:00:31 -0000

>>>>>>

>>>>>> Re: Why Navamsa Chart is so

>>>>> important?

>>>>>>

>>>>>> Dear Prafulla ji,

>>>>>> * Even if those things are not there in ancient texts

>>> every

>>>>> one is

>>>>>> free to make or follow there own choice - yes, there is

>>>>> every chance

>>>>>> that even such new methods might give true results -

>>> your

>>>>> argument is

>>>>>> right.

>>>>>> * As far Sanskrit is concerned: Yes, it is your choice

>>> -

>>>>> when you

>>>>>> are blind to read and understand Sanskrit your self, and

>>>>> understand

>>>>>> what is there and what not, of course you have to follow

>>>>> someone who

>>>>>> says they see - you are right in that as well.

>>>>>> Love,

>>>>>> Sreenadh

>>>>>>

>>>>>> , Prafulla Gang

>>>>> <jyotish@>

>>>>>> wrote:

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> Well Sreenadh ji - at times, these issues become choice

>>> or

>>>>>> prejudices in our own form of reading model. Had there

>>> not

>>>>> been any

>>>>>> substance in interpreting D9 charts - lot many stalwarts

>>>>> must not

>>>>>> have explored it - and I presume - many of them know

>>> better

>>>>>> sanskrit / jyotish (rather both) than all of us on the

>>> forum

>>>

>> === message truncated ===

>>

>>

>>

>>

> ______________________\

> ____________

>> Fussy? Opinionated? Impossible to please? Perfect. Join 's user

> panel and lay it on us.

> http://surveylink./gmrs/_panel_invite.asp?a=7

>>

[Guest guest]

Hi Prafulla,

Thanks for your kind comments. I came back to this list after a long

time. What I find strange is everyone is discussing every method of

every other astrologer but not of the mentor of this list, Shri K.N.Rao.

Does that invoke justice to a discussion especially on a list where he

has given us so many pearls and his name is still associated with this

list. This is a strange concept for me to digest. I hope you would agree

with me here. Why is nobody discussing in detail how Shri Rao uses the

divisional charts, usually people back their statements with Shri Rao's

observations, now people are not doing so, why?

 

Pradeep is a good friend and let us wait to see his model, but at the

same time I would rather prefer to see any model that has worked on

hundreds of charts with predictions on blind charts. When I read JOA I

see that is the method followed by Shri Rao, blind charts testing is a

natural progression for us to see if our method is working.

 

Without it we are doing theory talk blah blah blah ))

 

Warm regards,

Sushmita

 

 

 

, Prafulla Gang <jyotish wrote:

>

> Hi Sushmita,

>

> Very well said. The presentation of case studies in its predictive

application (both ways - proving other's notions wrong and proving their

interpretation through predictions) is the only way forward.

>

> I am waiting with open mind, for Pradeep to put forward his

interpretation model - of course in his timne schedule (as he has

promised).

>

> regards / Prafulla Gang

> http://www.prafulla.net

>

> " Men who never get carried away should be. "

> ************************************************

>

>

> >

> > sushmita34

> > Sat, 07 Jul 2007 06:21:21 -0000

> >

> > Re: Why Navamsa Chart is so important?

> >

> > Hi Krishna,

> >

> > Seems you have a logical & balanced head above your shoulder.

> > I too think the best way is to test it and not debate endlessly. I

was

> > once given a simple piece of advice, if K.N.Rao uses a method he has

not

> > tested it on 1 chart or read shlokas, he has tested it minimum on

50,000

> > charts over a period of years before he even talks about it or

writes

> > about it. I would not blindly follow what Shri Rao says but would

myself

> > test it and have often found most ideas working that he has put

forth.

> > Unfortunately we find most astrologers only debate, debate, debate

but

> > do not test it on many charts.

> >

> >

> > Regards,

> > Sushmita

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > , Krishnamurthy Seetharama

> > krishna_1998@ wrote:

> >>

> >> Dear Kolachina ji,

> >>

> >> Yes, I agree with you. It appears that this debate will go on

> >> till both sides get tired. I am pretty clear about the path I

> >> have chosen. It works for me and that is what matters the most.

> >> I give more importance to what the charts indicate than what is

> >> said in the texts (By no way I am disrespecting our sages by

> >> saying this, because it is possible that we have not understood

> >> them correctly). I believe that Truth lies in reality and and

> >> reality lies in the charts. And, I have seen that the relations

> >> of planets in Navamsha play an important role. I don't need more

> >> evidence. When I raised the question, I was not looking for

> >> evidence, I only wanted to understand the reasons behind such a

> >> reality. But, I failed to get the answer.

> >>

> >> Regards,

> >> Krishna

> >>

> >>

> >> --- Satya Sai Kolachina skolachi@ wrote:

> >>

> >>> Dear Sri Krishnamurthy,

> >>>

> >>> This debate is never ending; since astrologers arguing on

> >>> either side

> >>> are strong in their opinions. It is upto the observers to

> >>> decide

> >>> which way to go, as you decided in your message below.

> >>>

> >>> But, it does not simply mean that those who do not reply are

> >>> agreeing

> >>> to the others message. I stopped interacting, as I have

> >>> understood

> >>> both sides arguments and made my own observation. Whatever I

> >>> had to

> >>> contribute I said in my two mails. I don't think this is ever

> >>> going

> >>> to end. If you are interested, please refer to the archives in

> >>> this

> >>> group, around a year and half ago; there was similar debate

> >>> between

> >>> Sri Vijaydas Pradeep (against the Navamsa or amsa charts in

> >>> general)

> >>> and Sri PVR Narasimha Rao (in support of the Navamsa or amsa

> >>> charts

> >>> in general). Both are learned, respected astrologers and have

> >>> their

> >>> own merits. This debate is not going to end, as it happened in

> >>> the

> >>> past. It only ends when people are one side are tired of

> >>> arguing.

> >>>

> >>> A healthy debate is one where both the parties present their

> >>> opinions, without giving a chance to anticipate credit for

> >>> something

> >>> they propose, or what they understood. WHen the credit is due,

> >>> it

> >>> automatically comes, according to astrology. Since we are all

> >>> learners, this approach will bring out good aspects of the

> >>> debate and

> >>> the subject being debated; as we have been observing from the

> >>> discussion from Sri Vijaydas Pradeep and Sri Chandrasekhar.

> >>>

> >>> I personally think the debate is not going to end, since both

> >>> of them

> >>> are strong in their opinions and I take value in both the

> >>> views.

> >>>

> >>> Best regards,

> >>>

> >>> Satya S Kolachina

> >>>

> >>>

> >>> , Krishnamurthy Seetharama

> >>> krishna_1998@ wrote:

> >>>>

> >>>> Dear All,

> >>>>

> >>>> As I was the one who started this thread, I must say that

> >>> the

> >>>> debate reamins inconclusive.

> >>>>

> >>>> It makes logical sense to say that one should not use

> >>> aspects,

> >>>> conjunctions etc. in D-charts as we are looking only at

> >>> logical

> >>>> positions of planets and not their physical positions like

> >>> in

> >>>> the Rasi chart. But, then why so many learned people who

> >>> have

> >>>> done succesful predictions consider aspects and conjunctions

> >>> in

> >>>> D-charts? Let me forget about all the other D-charts for now

> >>> and

> >>>> let me stick to only Navamsha as that is what we are

> >>> discussing

> >>>> in this thread.

> >>>>

> >>>> In mind, based on my learning, I felt that Navamsha charts

> >>> are

> >>>> at a different plane as compared to other D-charts and hence

> >>> it

> >>>> is allowed to look at aspects and conjunctions only in

> >>> Navamsha

> >>>> and not in other D-Charts. I wanted to know the reasoning

> >>> behind

> >>>> this special treatment to Navamsha chart and hence raised

> >>> this

> >>>> question.

> >>>>

> >>>> I started learning Jyotish using Shri. B V Raman's books. He

> >>>> uses Navamsa Chart like Rasi Chart for all practical

> >>> purposes.

> >>>> He has been considered as one of the pioneers in modern day

> >>>> Astrology.

> >>>>

> >>>> I tend to agree with Prafulla. After all, why do we study

> >>> this

> >>>> science? The answer for me is that it shows the light and

> >>> guides

> >>>> me in my life. Hence, preditive part of the science is as of

> >>>> paramount importance. I guess the only way to resolve this

> >>>> deadlock is to take a bunch of charts (with reasonably

> >>> accurate

> >>>> birth data) and study them with and without using aspects

> >>> and

> >>>> conjunctions in Navamsha and explain the major events in

> >>> life.

> >>>>

> >>>> I see no other way to end this debate.

> >>>>

> >>>> Regards,

> >>>> Krishna

> >>>>

> >>>>

> >>>> --- Prafulla Gang jyotish@ wrote:

> >>>>

> >>>>> Dear Sreenadh ji

> >>>>>

> >>>>> Well - who knows the truth? - Should the person making

> >>>>> comment, be construed to be as truth seeker - until they

> >>> prove

> >>>>> with the application of the principles on the charts (

> >>> both

> >>>>> ways - firstly the wrong application of others; and

> >>> secondly

> >>>>> how to read in correct way). Theorists without predictive

> >>>>> support - has little relevance in jyotish. But yes - if

> >>> you

> >>>>> can justify your statements by case studies - then at

> >>> least, I

> >>>>> will hear with open mind.

> >>>>>

> >>>>> Understandably, I have been quoted to be " blind " to

> >>>>> commentaries - but my submission is that - give me one

> >>> reason

> >>>>> to accept the views of " less read scholars " than to " well

> >>> read

> >>>>> scholars like Late Santhanam / Shri KN Rao / Shri Sanjay

> >>> rath

> >>>>> / many others " . and More so - as I do not " pretend " to

> >>> know

> >>>>> the sanskrit and do not " waste " my time on " shloka

> >>> business "

> >>>>> with my " incomplete knowledge " . So I am happy to be

> >>> following

> >>>>> better quality commentaries - who are expalining with the

> >>> case

> >>>>> studies.

> >>>>>

> >>>>> Of course - each one makes his choice.

> >>>>>

> >>>>>

> >>>>> regards / Prafulla Gang

> >>>>> http://www.prafulla.net

> >>>>>

> >>>>> " Men who never get carried away should be. "

> >>>>> ************************************************

> >>>>>

> >>>>>

> >>>>>>

> >>>>>> sreesog@

> >>>>>> Thu, 05 Jul 2007 07:00:31 -0000

> >>>>>>

> >>>>>> Re: Why Navamsa Chart is so

> >>>>> important?

> >>>>>>

> >>>>>> Dear Prafulla ji,

> >>>>>> * Even if those things are not there in ancient texts

> >>> every

> >>>>> one is

> >>>>>> free to make or follow there own choice - yes, there is

> >>>>> every chance

> >>>>>> that even such new methods might give true results -

> >>> your

> >>>>> argument is

> >>>>>> right.

> >>>>>> * As far Sanskrit is concerned: Yes, it is your choice

> >>> -

> >>>>> when you

> >>>>>> are blind to read and understand Sanskrit your self, and

> >>>>> understand

> >>>>>> what is there and what not, of course you have to follow

> >>>>> someone who

> >>>>>> says they see - you are right in that as well.

> >>>>>> Love,

> >>>>>> Sreenadh

> >>>>>>

> >>>>>> , Prafulla Gang

> >>>>> <jyotish@>

> >>>>>> wrote:

> >>>>>>>

> >>>>>>> Well Sreenadh ji - at times, these issues become choice

> >>> or

> >>>>>> prejudices in our own form of reading model. Had there

> >>> not

> >>>>> been any

> >>>>>> substance in interpreting D9 charts - lot many stalwarts

> >>>>> must not

> >>>>>> have explored it - and I presume - many of them know

> >>> better

> >>>>>> sanskrit / jyotish (rather both) than all of us on the

> >>> forum

> >>>

> >> === message truncated ===

> >>

> >>

> >>

> >>

> >

______________________\

\

> > ____________

> >> Fussy? Opinionated? Impossible to please? Perfect. Join 's

user

> > panel and lay it on us.

> > http://surveylink./gmrs/_panel_invite.asp?a=7

> >>

>

[Guest guest]

Hi Sushmita,

 

Thanks for the kind note. I am new in this group. I have heard

so much about K N Rao. Hope to learn from him and from his

shishyas. Does he not participate directly in this group?

 

Regards,

Krishna

 

--- sushmita34 <sushmita34 wrote:

 

> Hi Krishna,

>

> Seems you have a logical & balanced head above your shoulder.

> I too think the best way is to test it and not debate

> endlessly. I was

> once given a simple piece of advice, if K.N.Rao uses a method

> he has not

> tested it on 1 chart or read shlokas, he has tested it minimum

> on 50,000

> charts over a period of years before he even talks about it or

> writes

> about it. I would not blindly follow what Shri Rao says but

> would myself

> test it and have often found most ideas working that he has

> put forth.

> Unfortunately we find most astrologers only debate, debate,

> debate but

> do not test it on many charts.

>

>

> Regards,

> Sushmita

>

>

>

>

>

> , Krishnamurthy Seetharama

> <krishna_1998 wrote:

> >

> > Dear Kolachina ji,

> >

> > Yes, I agree with you. It appears that this debate will go

> on

> > till both sides get tired. I am pretty clear about the path

> I

> > have chosen. It works for me and that is what matters the

> most.

> > I give more importance to what the charts indicate than what

> is

> > said in the texts (By no way I am disrespecting our sages by

> > saying this, because it is possible that we have not

> understood

> > them correctly). I believe that Truth lies in reality and

> and

> > reality lies in the charts. And, I have seen that the

> relations

> > of planets in Navamsha play an important role. I don't need

> more

> > evidence. When I raised the question, I was not looking for

> > evidence, I only wanted to understand the reasons behind

> such a

> > reality. But, I failed to get the answer.

> >

> > Regards,

> > Krishna

> >

> >

> > --- Satya Sai Kolachina skolachi wrote:

> >

> > > Dear Sri Krishnamurthy,

> > >

> > > This debate is never ending; since astrologers arguing on

> > > either side

> > > are strong in their opinions. It is upto the observers to

> > > decide

> > > which way to go, as you decided in your message below.

> > >

> > > But, it does not simply mean that those who do not reply

> are

> > > agreeing

> > > to the others message. I stopped interacting, as I have

> > > understood

> > > both sides arguments and made my own observation. Whatever

> I

> > > had to

> > > contribute I said in my two mails. I don't think this is

> ever

> > > going

> > > to end. If you are interested, please refer to the

> archives in

> > > this

> > > group, around a year and half ago; there was similar

> debate

> > > between

> > > Sri Vijaydas Pradeep (against the Navamsa or amsa charts

> in

> > > general)

> > > and Sri PVR Narasimha Rao (in support of the Navamsa or

> amsa

> > > charts

> > > in general). Both are learned, respected astrologers and

> have

> > > their

> > > own merits. This debate is not going to end, as it

> happened in

> > > the

> > > past. It only ends when people are one side are tired of

> > > arguing.

> > >

> > > A healthy debate is one where both the parties present

> their

> > > opinions, without giving a chance to anticipate credit for

> > > something

> > > they propose, or what they understood. WHen the credit is

> due,

> > > it

> > > automatically comes, according to astrology. Since we are

> all

> > > learners, this approach will bring out good aspects of the

> > > debate and

> > > the subject being debated; as we have been observing from

> the

> > > discussion from Sri Vijaydas Pradeep and Sri

> Chandrasekhar.

> > >

> > > I personally think the debate is not going to end, since

> both

> > > of them

> > > are strong in their opinions and I take value in both the

> > > views.

> > >

> > > Best regards,

> > >

> > > Satya S Kolachina

> > >

> > >

> > > , Krishnamurthy

> Seetharama

> > > krishna_1998@ wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Dear All,

> > > >

> > > > As I was the one who started this thread, I must say

> that

> > > the

> > > > debate reamins inconclusive.

> > > >

> > > > It makes logical sense to say that one should not use

> > > aspects,

> > > > conjunctions etc. in D-charts as we are looking only at

> > > logical

> > > > positions of planets and not their physical positions

> like

> > > in

> > > > the Rasi chart. But, then why so many learned people who

> > > have

> > > > done succesful predictions consider aspects and

> conjunctions

> > > in

> > > > D-charts? Let me forget about all the other D-charts for

> now

> > > and

> > > > let me stick to only Navamsha as that is what we are

> > > discussing

> > > > in this thread.

> > > >

> > > > In mind, based on my learning, I felt that Navamsha

> charts

> > > are

> > > > at a different plane as compared to other D-charts and

> hence

> > > it

> > > > is allowed to look at aspects and conjunctions only in

> > > Navamsha

> > > > and not in other D-Charts. I wanted to know the

> reasoning

> > > behind

> > > > this special treatment to Navamsha chart and hence

> raised

> > > this

> > > > question.

> > > >

> > > > I started learning Jyotish using Shri. B V Raman's

> books. He

> > > > uses Navamsa Chart like Rasi Chart for all practical

> > > purposes.

> > > > He has been considered as one of the pioneers in modern

> day

> > > > Astrology.

> > > >

> > > > I tend to agree with Prafulla. After all, why do we

> study

> > > this

> > > > science? The answer for me is that it shows the light

> and

> > > guides

> > > > me in my life. Hence, preditive part of the science is

> as of

> > > > paramount importance. I guess the only way to resolve

> this

> > > > deadlock is to take a bunch of charts (with reasonably

> > > accurate

> > > > birth data) and study them with and without using

> aspects

> > > and

> > > > conjunctions in Navamsha and explain the major events in

> > > life.

> > > >

> > > > I see no other way to end this debate.

> > > >

>

=== message truncated ===

 

 

 

______________________________\

____

Luggage? GPS? Comic books?

Check out fitting gifts for grads at Search

http://search./search?fr=oni_on_mail & p=graduation+gifts & cs=bz

[Guest guest]

drear krishnaji,

 

Namaste,

 

Shri KN Rao Sahab has shifted more towards spirituality

since last few years. As far as I know he has attained saturation

level in astrology , sort of, and would prefer the former to latter.

 

Its good that he does not participate in the Group.

He may hang his head in shame, when he ses the current goings on

in this List, at todays breed of astrologers and their behaviours.

This of course includes me too.

 

He is a great man, and he rather stay away from pollution.

 

regards,

Bhaskar.

 

 

 

 

, Krishnamurthy Seetharama

<krishna_1998 wrote:

>

> Hi Sushmita,

>

> Thanks for the kind note. I am new in this group. I have heard

> so much about K N Rao. Hope to learn from him and from his

> shishyas. Does he not participate directly in this group?

>

> Regards,

> Krishna

>

> --- sushmita34 <sushmita34 wrote:

>

> > Hi Krishna,

> >

> > Seems you have a logical & balanced head above your shoulder.

> > I too think the best way is to test it and not debate

> > endlessly. I was

> > once given a simple piece of advice, if K.N.Rao uses a method

> > he has not

> > tested it on 1 chart or read shlokas, he has tested it minimum

> > on 50,000

> > charts over a period of years before he even talks about it or

> > writes

> > about it. I would not blindly follow what Shri Rao says but

> > would myself

> > test it and have often found most ideas working that he has

> > put forth.

> > Unfortunately we find most astrologers only debate, debate,

> > debate but

> > do not test it on many charts.

> >

> >

> > Regards,

> > Sushmita

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > , Krishnamurthy Seetharama

> > <krishna_1998@> wrote:

> > >

> > > Dear Kolachina ji,

> > >

> > > Yes, I agree with you. It appears that this debate will go

> > on

> > > till both sides get tired. I am pretty clear about the path

> > I

> > > have chosen. It works for me and that is what matters the

> > most.

> > > I give more importance to what the charts indicate than what

> > is

> > > said in the texts (By no way I am disrespecting our sages by

> > > saying this, because it is possible that we have not

> > understood

> > > them correctly). I believe that Truth lies in reality and

> > and

> > > reality lies in the charts. And, I have seen that the

> > relations

> > > of planets in Navamsha play an important role. I don't need

> > more

> > > evidence. When I raised the question, I was not looking for

> > > evidence, I only wanted to understand the reasons behind

> > such a

> > > reality. But, I failed to get the answer.

> > >

> > > Regards,

> > > Krishna

> > >

> > >

> > > --- Satya Sai Kolachina skolachi@ wrote:

> > >

> > > > Dear Sri Krishnamurthy,

> > > >

> > > > This debate is never ending; since astrologers arguing on

> > > > either side

> > > > are strong in their opinions. It is upto the observers to

> > > > decide

> > > > which way to go, as you decided in your message below.

> > > >

> > > > But, it does not simply mean that those who do not reply

> > are

> > > > agreeing

> > > > to the others message. I stopped interacting, as I have

> > > > understood

> > > > both sides arguments and made my own observation. Whatever

> > I

> > > > had to

> > > > contribute I said in my two mails. I don't think this is

> > ever

> > > > going

> > > > to end. If you are interested, please refer to the

> > archives in

> > > > this

> > > > group, around a year and half ago; there was similar

> > debate

> > > > between

> > > > Sri Vijaydas Pradeep (against the Navamsa or amsa charts

> > in

> > > > general)

> > > > and Sri PVR Narasimha Rao (in support of the Navamsa or

> > amsa

> > > > charts

> > > > in general). Both are learned, respected astrologers and

> > have

> > > > their

> > > > own merits. This debate is not going to end, as it

> > happened in

> > > > the

> > > > past. It only ends when people are one side are tired of

> > > > arguing.

> > > >

> > > > A healthy debate is one where both the parties present

> > their

> > > > opinions, without giving a chance to anticipate credit for

> > > > something

> > > > they propose, or what they understood. WHen the credit is

> > due,

> > > > it

> > > > automatically comes, according to astrology. Since we are

> > all

> > > > learners, this approach will bring out good aspects of the

> > > > debate and

> > > > the subject being debated; as we have been observing from

> > the

> > > > discussion from Sri Vijaydas Pradeep and Sri

> > Chandrasekhar.

> > > >

> > > > I personally think the debate is not going to end, since

> > both

> > > > of them

> > > > are strong in their opinions and I take value in both the

> > > > views.

> > > >

> > > > Best regards,

> > > >

> > > > Satya S Kolachina

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > , Krishnamurthy

> > Seetharama

> > > > krishna_1998@ wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > > Dear All,

> > > > >

> > > > > As I was the one who started this thread, I must say

> > that

> > > > the

> > > > > debate reamins inconclusive.

> > > > >

> > > > > It makes logical sense to say that one should not use

> > > > aspects,

> > > > > conjunctions etc. in D-charts as we are looking only at

> > > > logical

> > > > > positions of planets and not their physical positions

> > like

> > > > in

> > > > > the Rasi chart. But, then why so many learned people who

> > > > have

> > > > > done succesful predictions consider aspects and

> > conjunctions

> > > > in

> > > > > D-charts? Let me forget about all the other D-charts for

> > now

> > > > and

> > > > > let me stick to only Navamsha as that is what we are

> > > > discussing

> > > > > in this thread.

> > > > >

> > > > > In mind, based on my learning, I felt that Navamsha

> > charts

> > > > are

> > > > > at a different plane as compared to other D-charts and

> > hence

> > > > it

> > > > > is allowed to look at aspects and conjunctions only in

> > > > Navamsha

> > > > > and not in other D-Charts. I wanted to know the

> > reasoning

> > > > behind

> > > > > this special treatment to Navamsha chart and hence

> > raised

> > > > this

> > > > > question.

> > > > >

> > > > > I started learning Jyotish using Shri. B V Raman's

> > books. He

> > > > > uses Navamsa Chart like Rasi Chart for all practical

> > > > purposes.

> > > > > He has been considered as one of the pioneers in modern

> > day

> > > > > Astrology.

> > > > >

> > > > > I tend to agree with Prafulla. After all, why do we

> > study

> > > > this

> > > > > science? The answer for me is that it shows the light

> > and

> > > > guides

> > > > > me in my life. Hence, preditive part of the science is

> > as of

> > > > > paramount importance. I guess the only way to resolve

> > this

> > > > > deadlock is to take a bunch of charts (with reasonably

> > > > accurate

> > > > > birth data) and study them with and without using

> > aspects

> > > > and

> > > > > conjunctions in Navamsha and explain the major events in

> > > > life.

> > > > >

> > > > > I see no other way to end this debate.

> > > > >

> >

> === message truncated ===

>

>

>

>

______________________________\

____

> Luggage? GPS? Comic books?

> Check out fitting gifts for grads at Search

> http://search./search?fr=oni_on_mail & p=graduation+gifts & cs=bz

>

[Guest guest]

Dear Bhaskar ji,

 

Thanks for the info. Hope the group moderator takes prompt

action to put people in their places and make space for good

astrological discussion. Otherwise, the forum would smell like a

fish market.

 

Regards,

Krishna

 

 

--- Bhaskar <bhaskar_jyotish wrote:

 

> drear krishnaji,

>

> Namaste,

>

> Shri KN Rao Sahab has shifted more towards spirituality

> since last few years. As far as I know he has attained

> saturation

> level in astrology , sort of, and would prefer the former to

> latter.

>

> Its good that he does not participate in the Group.

> He may hang his head in shame, when he ses the current goings

> on

> in this List, at todays breed of astrologers and their

> behaviours.

> This of course includes me too.

>

> He is a great man, and he rather stay away from pollution.

>

> regards,

> Bhaskar.

>

>

>

>

> , Krishnamurthy Seetharama

> <krishna_1998 wrote:

> >

> > Hi Sushmita,

> >

> > Thanks for the kind note. I am new in this group. I have

> heard

> > so much about K N Rao. Hope to learn from him and from his

> > shishyas. Does he not participate directly in this group?

> >

> > Regards,

> > Krishna

> >

> > --- sushmita34 <sushmita34 wrote:

> >

> > > Hi Krishna,

> > >

> > > Seems you have a logical & balanced head above your

> shoulder.

> > > I too think the best way is to test it and not debate

> > > endlessly. I was

> > > once given a simple piece of advice, if K.N.Rao uses a

> method

> > > he has not

> > > tested it on 1 chart or read shlokas, he has tested it

> minimum

> > > on 50,000

> > > charts over a period of years before he even talks about

> it or

> > > writes

> > > about it. I would not blindly follow what Shri Rao says

> but

> > > would myself

> > > test it and have often found most ideas working that he

> has

> > > put forth.

> > > Unfortunately we find most astrologers only debate,

> debate,

> > > debate but

> > > do not test it on many charts.

> > >

> > >

> > > Regards,

> > > Sushmita

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > , Krishnamurthy

> Seetharama

> > > <krishna_1998@> wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Dear Kolachina ji,

> > > >

> > > > Yes, I agree with you. It appears that this debate will

> go

> > > on

> > > > till both sides get tired. I am pretty clear about the

> path

> > > I

> > > > have chosen. It works for me and that is what matters

> the

> > > most.

> > > > I give more importance to what the charts indicate than

> what

> > > is

> > > > said in the texts (By no way I am disrespecting our

> sages by

> > > > saying this, because it is possible that we have not

> > > understood

> > > > them correctly). I believe that Truth lies in reality

> and

> > > and

> > > > reality lies in the charts. And, I have seen that the

> > > relations

> > > > of planets in Navamsha play an important role. I don't

> need

> > > more

> > > > evidence. When I raised the question, I was not looking

> for

> > > > evidence, I only wanted to understand the reasons behind

> > > such a

> > > > reality. But, I failed to get the answer.

> > > >

> > > > Regards,

> > > > Krishna

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > --- Satya Sai Kolachina skolachi@ wrote:

> > > >

> > > > > Dear Sri Krishnamurthy,

> > > > >

> > > > > This debate is never ending; since astrologers arguing

> on

> > > > > either side

> > > > > are strong in their opinions. It is upto the observers

> to

> > > > > decide

> > > > > which way to go, as you decided in your message below.

> > > > >

> > > > > But, it does not simply mean that those who do not

> reply

> > > are

> > > > > agreeing

> > > > > to the others message. I stopped interacting, as I

> have

> > > > > understood

> > > > > both sides arguments and made my own observation.

> Whatever

> > > I

> > > > > had to

> > > > > contribute I said in my two mails. I don't think this

> is

> > > ever

> > > > > going

> > > > > to end. If you are interested, please refer to the

> > > archives in

> > > > > this

> > > > > group, around a year and half ago; there was similar

> > > debate

> > > > > between

> > > > > Sri Vijaydas Pradeep (against the Navamsa or amsa

> charts

> > > in

> > > > > general)

> > > > > and Sri PVR Narasimha Rao (in support of the Navamsa

> or

> > > amsa

> > > > > charts

> > > > > in general). Both are learned, respected astrologers

> and

> > > have

> > > > > their

> > > > > own merits. This debate is not going to end, as it

> > > happened in

> > > > > the

> > > > > past. It only ends when people are one side are tired

> of

> > > > > arguing.

> > > > >

> > > > > A healthy debate is one where both the parties present

> > > their

> > > > > opinions, without giving a chance to anticipate credit

> for

> > > > > something

> > > > > they propose, or what they understood. WHen the credit

> is

> > > due,

> > > > > it

> > > > > automatically comes, according to astrology. Since we

> are

> > > all

> > > > > learners, this approach will bring out good aspects of

> the

> > > > > debate and

> > > > > the subject being debated; as we have been observing

> from

> > > the

> > > > > discussion from Sri Vijaydas Pradeep and Sri

> > > Chandrasekhar.

> > > > >

> > > > > I personally think the debate is not going to end,

> since

> > > both

> > > > > of them

> > > > > are strong in their opinions and I take value in both

> the

> > > > > views.

> > > > >

> > > > > Best regards,

> > > > >

> > > > > Satya S Kolachina

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > , Krishnamurthy

>

=== message truncated ===

 

 

 

 

______________________________\

____

Looking for a deal? Find great prices on flights and hotels with

FareChase.

http://farechase./

[Guest guest]

Dear Bhaskar ji,

 

Thanks for the info. Hope the group moderator takes prompt

action to put people in their places and make space for good

astrological discussion. Otherwise, the forum would smell like a

fish market.

 

Regards,

Krishna

 

 

--- Bhaskar <bhaskar_jyotish wrote:

 

> drear krishnaji,

>

> Namaste,

>

> Shri KN Rao Sahab has shifted more towards spirituality

> since last few years. As far as I know he has attained

> saturation

> level in astrology , sort of, and would prefer the former to

> latter.

>

> Its good that he does not participate in the Group.

> He may hang his head in shame, when he ses the current goings

> on

> in this List, at todays breed of astrologers and their

> behaviours.

> This of course includes me too.

>

> He is a great man, and he rather stay away from pollution.

>

> regards,

> Bhaskar.

>

>

>

>

> , Krishnamurthy Seetharama

> <krishna_1998 wrote:

> >

> > Hi Sushmita,

> >

> > Thanks for the kind note. I am new in this group. I have

> heard

> > so much about K N Rao. Hope to learn from him and from his

> > shishyas. Does he not participate directly in this group?

> >

> > Regards,

> > Krishna

> >

> > --- sushmita34 <sushmita34 wrote:

> >

> > > Hi Krishna,

> > >

> > > Seems you have a logical & balanced head above your

> shoulder.

> > > I too think the best way is to test it and not debate

> > > endlessly. I was

> > > once given a simple piece of advice, if K.N.Rao uses a

> method

> > > he has not

> > > tested it on 1 chart or read shlokas, he has tested it

> minimum

> > > on 50,000

> > > charts over a period of years before he even talks about

> it or

> > > writes

> > > about it. I would not blindly follow what Shri Rao says

> but

> > > would myself

> > > test it and have often found most ideas working that he

> has

> > > put forth.

> > > Unfortunately we find most astrologers only debate,

> debate,

> > > debate but

> > > do not test it on many charts.

> > >

> > >

> > > Regards,

> > > Sushmita

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > , Krishnamurthy

> Seetharama

> > > <krishna_1998@> wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Dear Kolachina ji,

> > > >

> > > > Yes, I agree with you. It appears that this debate will

> go

> > > on

> > > > till both sides get tired. I am pretty clear about the

> path

> > > I

> > > > have chosen. It works for me and that is what matters

> the

> > > most.

> > > > I give more importance to what the charts indicate than

> what

> > > is

> > > > said in the texts (By no way I am disrespecting our

> sages by

> > > > saying this, because it is possible that we have not

> > > understood

> > > > them correctly). I believe that Truth lies in reality

> and

> > > and

> > > > reality lies in the charts. And, I have seen that the

> > > relations

> > > > of planets in Navamsha play an important role. I don't

> need

> > > more

> > > > evidence. When I raised the question, I was not looking

> for

> > > > evidence, I only wanted to understand the reasons behind

> > > such a

> > > > reality. But, I failed to get the answer.

> > > >

> > > > Regards,

> > > > Krishna

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > --- Satya Sai Kolachina skolachi@ wrote:

> > > >

> > > > > Dear Sri Krishnamurthy,

> > > > >

> > > > > This debate is never ending; since astrologers arguing

> on

> > > > > either side

> > > > > are strong in their opinions. It is upto the observers

> to

> > > > > decide

> > > > > which way to go, as you decided in your message below.

> > > > >

> > > > > But, it does not simply mean that those who do not

> reply

> > > are

> > > > > agreeing

> > > > > to the others message. I stopped interacting, as I

> have

> > > > > understood

> > > > > both sides arguments and made my own observation.

> Whatever

> > > I

> > > > > had to

> > > > > contribute I said in my two mails. I don't think this

> is

> > > ever

> > > > > going

> > > > > to end. If you are interested, please refer to the

> > > archives in

> > > > > this

> > > > > group, around a year and half ago; there was similar

> > > debate

> > > > > between

> > > > > Sri Vijaydas Pradeep (against the Navamsa or amsa

> charts

> > > in

> > > > > general)

> > > > > and Sri PVR Narasimha Rao (in support of the Navamsa

> or

> > > amsa

> > > > > charts

> > > > > in general). Both are learned, respected astrologers

> and

> > > have

> > > > > their

> > > > > own merits. This debate is not going to end, as it

> > > happened in

> > > > > the

> > > > > past. It only ends when people are one side are tired

> of

> > > > > arguing.

> > > > >

> > > > > A healthy debate is one where both the parties present

> > > their

> > > > > opinions, without giving a chance to anticipate credit

> for

> > > > > something

> > > > > they propose, or what they understood. WHen the credit

> is

> > > due,

> > > > > it

> > > > > automatically comes, according to astrology. Since we

> are

> > > all

> > > > > learners, this approach will bring out good aspects of

> the

> > > > > debate and

> > > > > the subject being debated; as we have been observing

> from

> > > the

> > > > > discussion from Sri Vijaydas Pradeep and Sri

> > > Chandrasekhar.

> > > > >

> > > > > I personally think the debate is not going to end,

> since

> > > both

> > > > > of them

> > > > > are strong in their opinions and I take value in both

> the

> > > > > views.

> > > > >

> > > > > Best regards,

> > > > >

> > > > > Satya S Kolachina

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > , Krishnamurthy

>

=== message truncated ===

 

 

 

 

______________________________\

____

Get the toolbar and be alerted to new email wherever you're surfing.

http://new.toolbar./toolbar/features/mail/index.php

[Guest guest]

Hi Sushmita,

 

Very well said.

 

> Hi Prafulla,

> Thanks for your kind comments. I came back to this list after a long

> time. What I find strange is everyone is discussing every method of

> every other astrologer but not of the mentor of this list, Shri K.N.Rao.

> Does that invoke justice to a discussion especially on a list where he

> has given us so many pearls and his name is still associated with this

> list. This is a strange concept for me to digest. I hope you would agree

> with me here. Why is nobody discussing in detail how Shri Rao uses the

> divisional charts, usually people back their statements with Shri Rao's

> observations, now people are not doing so, why?

 

 

[Prafulla] Yes - on the thread on D9, I did specifically request Shri Pradeep ji

to put forward the views of Shri KN Rao (as to how does he interpret D9, does he

consider D9 as independent chakra, how does he apply D9 in transit analysis

etc). But perhaps, Pradeep ji did not have opportunity to have specific views of

Shri Rao. So we got to go back to his books / articles etc. Yes, Shri Rao has

been very categoric and explicit on its existence and application. Even I had

the same presumption that, Shri Pradeep might prefer to follow Shri Rao's

findings (as I have often observed him quoting Shri Rao for astrological

rationale), but it seems that he has traced the fallacy in Shri Rao's

interpretation of D9. So let us patiently hear his predictive application for an

important revelation.

>

> Pradeep is a good friend and let us wait to see his model, but at the

> same time I would rather prefer to see any model that has worked on

> hundreds of charts with predictions on blind charts. When I read JOA I

> see that is the method followed by Shri Rao, blind charts testing is a

> natural progression for us to see if our method is working.

>

 

[Prafulla] yes, as I expressed my desire to read shri Pradeep's findings with

case examples - I will patiently wait for his case studies.

 

D9 and its reading model like rashi is very well explored and exhibited by most

scholars (including Shri Rao. Shri rath, Late shri BV raman etc).

 

Yes, Blind charts - often are the best way to proceed with predictive analysis

(else it becomes fixing jyotish). But it requires very fine tuned predictive

faculties. Most often, I have observed that - scholars focus on writing articles

/ books than the case studies.

 

> Without it we are doing theory talk blah blah blah ))

>

[Prafulla] yes -else, it will not lead to any constructive conclusion.

 

regards / Prafulla Gang

http://www.prafulla.net

 

" Men who never get carried away should be. "

************************************************

 

>

>

> , Prafulla Gang <jyotish wrote:

>>

>> Hi Sushmita,

>>

>> Very well said. The presentation of case studies in its predictive

> application (both ways - proving other's notions wrong and proving their

> interpretation through predictions) is the only way forward.

>>

>> I am waiting with open mind, for Pradeep to put forward his

> interpretation model - of course in his timne schedule (as he has

> promised).

>>

>> regards / Prafulla Gang

>> http://www.prafulla.net

>>

>> " Men who never get carried away should be. "

>> ************************************************

>>

>>

>>>

>>> sushmita34

>>> Sat, 07 Jul 2007 06:21:21 -0000

>>>

>>> Re: Why Navamsa Chart is so important?

>>>

>>> Hi Krishna,

>>>

>>> Seems you have a logical & balanced head above your shoulder.

>>> I too think the best way is to test it and not debate endlessly. I

> was

>>> once given a simple piece of advice, if K.N.Rao uses a method he has

> not

>>> tested it on 1 chart or read shlokas, he has tested it minimum on

> 50,000

>>> charts over a period of years before he even talks about it or

> writes

>>> about it. I would not blindly follow what Shri Rao says but would

> myself

>>> test it and have often found most ideas working that he has put

> forth.

>>> Unfortunately we find most astrologers only debate, debate, debate

> but

>>> do not test it on many charts.

>>>

>>>

>>> Regards,

>>> Sushmita

>>>

>>>

>>>

>>>

>>>

>>> , Krishnamurthy Seetharama

>>> krishna_1998@ wrote:

>>>>

>>>> Dear Kolachina ji,

>>>>

>>>> Yes, I agree with you. It appears that this debate will go on

>>>> till both sides get tired. I am pretty clear about the path I

>>>> have chosen. It works for me and that is what matters the most.

>>>> I give more importance to what the charts indicate than what is

>>>> said in the texts (By no way I am disrespecting our sages by

>>>> saying this, because it is possible that we have not understood

>>>> them correctly). I believe that Truth lies in reality and and

>>>> reality lies in the charts. And, I have seen that the relations

>>>> of planets in Navamsha play an important role. I don't need more

>>>> evidence. When I raised the question, I was not looking for

>>>> evidence, I only wanted to understand the reasons behind such a

>>>> reality. But, I failed to get the answer.

>>>>

>>>> Regards,

>>>> Krishna

>>>>

>>>>

>>>> --- Satya Sai Kolachina skolachi@ wrote:

>>>>

>>>>> Dear Sri Krishnamurthy,

>>>>>

>>>>> This debate is never ending; since astrologers arguing on

>>>>> either side

>>>>> are strong in their opinions. It is upto the observers to

>>>>> decide

>>>>> which way to go, as you decided in your message below.

>>>>>

>>>>> But, it does not simply mean that those who do not reply are

>>>>> agreeing

>>>>> to the others message. I stopped interacting, as I have

>>>>> understood

>>>>> both sides arguments and made my own observation. Whatever I

>>>>> had to

>>>>> contribute I said in my two mails. I don't think this is ever

>>>>> going

>>>>> to end. If you are interested, please refer to the archives in

>>>>> this

>>>>> group, around a year and half ago; there was similar debate

>>>>> between

>>>>> Sri Vijaydas Pradeep (against the Navamsa or amsa charts in

>>>>> general)

>>>>> and Sri PVR Narasimha Rao (in support of the Navamsa or amsa

>>>>> charts

>>>>> in general). Both are learned, respected astrologers and have

>>>>> their

>>>>> own merits. This debate is not going to end, as it happened in

>>>>> the

>>>>> past. It only ends when people are one side are tired of

>>>>> arguing.

>>>>>

>>>>> A healthy debate is one where both the parties present their

>>>>> opinions, without giving a chance to anticipate credit for

>>>>> something

>>>>> they propose, or what they understood. WHen the credit is due,

>>>>> it

>>>>> automatically comes, according to astrology. Since we are all

>>>>> learners, this approach will bring out good aspects of the

>>>>> debate and

>>>>> the subject being debated; as we have been observing from the

>>>>> discussion from Sri Vijaydas Pradeep and Sri Chandrasekhar.

>>>>>

>>>>> I personally think the debate is not going to end, since both

>>>>> of them

>>>>> are strong in their opinions and I take value in both the

>>>>> views.

>>>>>

>>>>> Best regards,

>>>>>

>>>>> Satya S Kolachina

>>>>>

>>>>>

>>>>> , Krishnamurthy Seetharama

>>>>> krishna_1998@ wrote:

>>>>>>

>>>>>> Dear All,

>>>>>>

>>>>>> As I was the one who started this thread, I must say that

>>>>> the

>>>>>> debate reamins inconclusive.

>>>>>>

>>>>>> It makes logical sense to say that one should not use

>>>>> aspects,

>>>>>> conjunctions etc. in D-charts as we are looking only at

>>>>> logical

>>>>>> positions of planets and not their physical positions like

>>>>> in

>>>>>> the Rasi chart. But, then why so many learned people who

>>>>> have

>>>>>> done succesful predictions consider aspects and conjunctions

>>>>> in

>>>>>> D-charts? Let me forget about all the other D-charts for now

>>>>> and

>>>>>> let me stick to only Navamsha as that is what we are

>>>>> discussing

>>>>>> in this thread.

>>>>>>

>>>>>> In mind, based on my learning, I felt that Navamsha charts

>>>>> are

>>>>>> at a different plane as compared to other D-charts and hence

>>>>> it

>>>>>> is allowed to look at aspects and conjunctions only in

>>>>> Navamsha

>>>>>> and not in other D-Charts. I wanted to know the reasoning

>>>>> behind

>>>>>> this special treatment to Navamsha chart and hence raised

>>>>> this

>>>>>> question.

>>>>>>

>>>>>> I started learning Jyotish using Shri. B V Raman's books. He

>>>>>> uses Navamsa Chart like Rasi Chart for all practical

>>>>> purposes.

>>>>>> He has been considered as one of the pioneers in modern day

>>>>>> Astrology.

>>>>>>

>>>>>> I tend to agree with Prafulla. After all, why do we study

>>>>> this

>>>>>> science? The answer for me is that it shows the light and

>>>>> guides

>>>>>> me in my life. Hence, preditive part of the science is as of

>>>>>> paramount importance. I guess the only way to resolve this

>>>>>> deadlock is to take a bunch of charts (with reasonably

>>>>> accurate

>>>>>> birth data) and study them with and without using aspects

>>>>> and

>>>>>> conjunctions in Navamsha and explain the major events in

>>>>> life.

>>>>>>

>>>>>> I see no other way to end this debate.

>>>>>>

>>>>>> Regards,

>>>>>> Krishna

>>>>>>

>>>>>>

>>>>>> --- Prafulla Gang jyotish@ wrote:

>>>>>>

>>>>>>> Dear Sreenadh ji

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> Well - who knows the truth? - Should the person making

>>>>>>> comment, be construed to be as truth seeker - until they

>>>>> prove

>>>>>>> with the application of the principles on the charts (

>>>>> both

>>>>>>> ways - firstly the wrong application of others; and

>>>>> secondly

>>>>>>> how to read in correct way). Theorists without predictive

>>>>>>> support - has little relevance in jyotish. But yes - if

>>>>> you

>>>>>>> can justify your statements by case studies - then at

>>>>> least, I

>>>>>>> will hear with open mind.

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> Understandably, I have been quoted to be " blind " to

>>>>>>> commentaries - but my submission is that - give me one

>>>>> reason

>>>>>>> to accept the views of " less read scholars " than to " well

>>>>> read

>>>>>>> scholars like Late Santhanam / Shri KN Rao / Shri Sanjay

>>>>> rath

>>>>>>> / many others " . and More so - as I do not " pretend " to

>>>>> know

>>>>>>> the sanskrit and do not " waste " my time on " shloka

>>>>> business "

>>>>>>> with my " incomplete knowledge " . So I am happy to be

>>>>> following

>>>>>>> better quality commentaries - who are expalining with the

>>>>> case

>>>>>>> studies.

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> Of course - each one makes his choice.

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> regards / Prafulla Gang

>>>>>>> http://www.prafulla.net

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> " Men who never get carried away should be. "

>>>>>>> ************************************************

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> sreesog@

>>>>>>>> Thu, 05 Jul 2007 07:00:31 -0000

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> Re: Why Navamsa Chart is so

>>>>>>> important?

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> Dear Prafulla ji,

>>>>>>>> * Even if those things are not there in ancient texts

>>>>> every

>>>>>>> one is

>>>>>>>> free to make or follow there own choice - yes, there is

>>>>>>> every chance

>>>>>>>> that even such new methods might give true results -

>>>>> your

>>>>>>> argument is

>>>>>>>> right.

>>>>>>>> * As far Sanskrit is concerned: Yes, it is your choice

>>>>> -

>>>>>>> when you

>>>>>>>> are blind to read and understand Sanskrit your self, and

>>>>>>> understand

>>>>>>>> what is there and what not, of course you have to follow

>>>>>>> someone who

>>>>>>>> says they see - you are right in that as well.

>>>>>>>> Love,

>>>>>>>> Sreenadh

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> , Prafulla Gang

>>>>>>> <jyotish@>

>>>>>>>> wrote:

>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>> Well Sreenadh ji - at times, these issues become choice

>>>>> or

>>>>>>>> prejudices in our own form of reading model. Had there

>>>>> not

>>>>>>> been any

>>>>>>>> substance in interpreting D9 charts - lot many stalwarts

>>>>>>> must not

>>>>>>>> have explored it - and I presume - many of them know

>>>>> better

>>>>>>>> sanskrit / jyotish (rather both) than all of us on the

>>>>> forum

>>>>>

>>>> === message truncated ===

>>>>

>>>>

>>>>

>>>>

>>>

> ______________________\

> \

>>> ____________

>>>> Fussy? Opinionated? Impossible to please? Perfect. Join 's

> user

>>> panel and lay it on us.

>>> http://surveylink./gmrs/_panel_invite.asp?a=7

>>>>

>>

[Guest guest]

Dear Sri Krishnamurthy,

 

That is a good approach, as I do normally. As you mentioned, the key

is that 'We may not (most probably do not) understand what the sages

said exactly. In fact, Sri KN Rao clearly passed several messaages

through his books and articles. (a) We need to take the CRF approach;

which means Classical rules - giving them a Romantic twist - and

apply Formula cliching; (b) He never suggested blind application of

rules from classical granthas; rather he said, by applying CRF

approach we can use classical rules with confidence; I liked that

statement and found almost 95+% accuracy in my predictions; © He

used aspects in Navamsa chart and clearly said that yogas present in

Rasi chart must be double-checked for their existence/support in the

Navamsa chart. If you do not make navamsa chart and if you do not

consider aspects therein, how do you look for yogas? Considering the

aspects and yogas in the navamsa charts is not something a new or

modern concept; it has been there since ages and many ancient

astrologers have done so. Those who argue gainst using Navams chart

propse that the amsas be looked into the rasi chart; that is also

true; in fact what they are propounding is nothing but the theory of

dispositors - like navamsa dispositor of 7th lord, navamsa dispositor

of 10th lord etc. That is also a valid rule to check for. That is why

earlier I said, both are valid and should be used in a composite

approach, as always said by Sri KN Rao. Ignoring Navamsa chart

totally will be the biggest blunder any astrologer would do. It they

prefer to do so; I have no objection; it is their choice.

 

I personally consider navamsa chart along with rasi chart (with the

same level of importance as given by Sri KN Rao), and I also consider

the condition of navamsa dispositors in the rasi chart. this gives

much better picture than when we completely ignore navamsa chart.

 

I will write more later ...

Best regards,

Satya S Kolachina

 

 

, Krishnamurthy Seetharama

<krishna_1998 wrote:

>

> Dear Kolachina ji,

>

> Yes, I agree with you. It appears that this debate will go on

> till both sides get tired. I am pretty clear about the path I

> have chosen. It works for me and that is what matters the most.

> I give more importance to what the charts indicate than what is

> said in the texts (By no way I am disrespecting our sages by

> saying this, because it is possible that we have not understood

> them correctly). I believe that Truth lies in reality and and

> reality lies in the charts. And, I have seen that the relations

> of planets in Navamsha play an important role. I don't need more

> evidence. When I raised the question, I was not looking for

> evidence, I only wanted to understand the reasons behind such a

> reality. But, I failed to get the answer.

>

> Regards,

> Krishna

>

>

> --- Satya Sai Kolachina <skolachi wrote:

>

> > Dear Sri Krishnamurthy,

> >

> > This debate is never ending; since astrologers arguing on

> > either side

> > are strong in their opinions. It is upto the observers to

> > decide

> > which way to go, as you decided in your message below.

> >

> > But, it does not simply mean that those who do not reply are

> > agreeing

> > to the others message. I stopped interacting, as I have

> > understood

> > both sides arguments and made my own observation. Whatever I

> > had to

> > contribute I said in my two mails. I don't think this is ever

> > going

> > to end. If you are interested, please refer to the archives in

> > this

> > group, around a year and half ago; there was similar debate

> > between

> > Sri Vijaydas Pradeep (against the Navamsa or amsa charts in

> > general)

> > and Sri PVR Narasimha Rao (in support of the Navamsa or amsa

> > charts

> > in general). Both are learned, respected astrologers and have

> > their

> > own merits. This debate is not going to end, as it happened in

> > the

> > past. It only ends when people are one side are tired of

> > arguing.

> >

> > A healthy debate is one where both the parties present their

> > opinions, without giving a chance to anticipate credit for

> > something

> > they propose, or what they understood. WHen the credit is due,

> > it

> > automatically comes, according to astrology. Since we are all

> > learners, this approach will bring out good aspects of the

> > debate and

> > the subject being debated; as we have been observing from the

> > discussion from Sri Vijaydas Pradeep and Sri Chandrasekhar.

> >

> > I personally think the debate is not going to end, since both

> > of them

> > are strong in their opinions and I take value in both the

> > views.

> >

> > Best regards,

> >

> > Satya S Kolachina

> >

> >

> > , Krishnamurthy Seetharama

> > <krishna_1998@> wrote:

> > >

> > > Dear All,

> > >

> > > As I was the one who started this thread, I must say that

> > the

> > > debate reamins inconclusive.

> > >

> > > It makes logical sense to say that one should not use

> > aspects,

> > > conjunctions etc. in D-charts as we are looking only at

> > logical

> > > positions of planets and not their physical positions like

> > in

> > > the Rasi chart. But, then why so many learned people who

> > have

> > > done succesful predictions consider aspects and conjunctions

> > in

> > > D-charts? Let me forget about all the other D-charts for now

> > and

> > > let me stick to only Navamsha as that is what we are

> > discussing

> > > in this thread.

> > >

> > > In mind, based on my learning, I felt that Navamsha charts

> > are

> > > at a different plane as compared to other D-charts and hence

> > it

> > > is allowed to look at aspects and conjunctions only in

> > Navamsha

> > > and not in other D-Charts. I wanted to know the reasoning

> > behind

> > > this special treatment to Navamsha chart and hence raised

> > this

> > > question.

> > >

> > > I started learning Jyotish using Shri. B V Raman's books. He

> > > uses Navamsa Chart like Rasi Chart for all practical

> > purposes.

> > > He has been considered as one of the pioneers in modern day

> > > Astrology.

> > >

> > > I tend to agree with Prafulla. After all, why do we study

> > this

> > > science? The answer for me is that it shows the light and

> > guides

> > > me in my life. Hence, preditive part of the science is as of

> > > paramount importance. I guess the only way to resolve this

> > > deadlock is to take a bunch of charts (with reasonably

> > accurate

> > > birth data) and study them with and without using aspects

> > and

> > > conjunctions in Navamsha and explain the major events in

> > life.

> > >

> > > I see no other way to end this debate.

> > >

> > > Regards,

> > > Krishna

> > >

> > >

> > > --- Prafulla Gang <jyotish@> wrote:

> > >

> > > > Dear Sreenadh ji

> > > >

> > > > Well - who knows the truth? - Should the person making

> > > > comment, be construed to be as truth seeker - until they

> > prove

> > > > with the application of the principles on the charts (

> > both

> > > > ways - firstly the wrong application of others; and

> > secondly

> > > > how to read in correct way). Theorists without predictive

> > > > support - has little relevance in jyotish. But yes - if

> > you

> > > > can justify your statements by case studies - then at

> > least, I

> > > > will hear with open mind.

> > > >

> > > > Understandably, I have been quoted to be " blind " to

> > > > commentaries - but my submission is that - give me one

> > reason

> > > > to accept the views of " less read scholars " than to " well

> > read

> > > > scholars like Late Santhanam / Shri KN Rao / Shri Sanjay

> > rath

> > > > / many others " . and More so - as I do not " pretend " to

> > know

> > > > the sanskrit and do not " waste " my time on " shloka

> > business "

> > > > with my " incomplete knowledge " . So I am happy to be

> > following

> > > > better quality commentaries - who are expalining with the

> > case

> > > > studies.

> > > >

> > > > Of course - each one makes his choice.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > regards / Prafulla Gang

> > > > http://www.prafulla.net

> > > >

> > > > " Men who never get carried away should be. "

> > > > ************************************************

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > sreesog@

> > > > > Thu, 05 Jul 2007 07:00:31 -0000

> > > > >

> > > > > Re: Why Navamsa Chart is so

> > > > important?

> > > > >

> > > > > Dear Prafulla ji,

> > > > > * Even if those things are not there in ancient texts

> > every

> > > > one is

> > > > > free to make or follow there own choice - yes, there is

> > > > every chance

> > > > > that even such new methods might give true results -

> > your

> > > > argument is

> > > > > right.

> > > > > * As far Sanskrit is concerned: Yes, it is your choice

> > -

> > > > when you

> > > > > are blind to read and understand Sanskrit your self, and

> > > > understand

> > > > > what is there and what not, of course you have to follow

> > > > someone who

> > > > > says they see - you are right in that as well.

> > > > > Love,

> > > > > Sreenadh

> > > > >

> > > > > , Prafulla Gang

> > > > <jyotish@>

> > > > > wrote:

> > > > >>

> > > > >> Well Sreenadh ji - at times, these issues become choice

> > or

> > > > > prejudices in our own form of reading model. Had there

> > not

> > > > been any

> > > > > substance in interpreting D9 charts - lot many stalwarts

> > > > must not

> > > > > have explored it - and I presume - many of them know

> > better

> > > > > sanskrit / jyotish (rather both) than all of us on the

> > forum

> >

> === message truncated ===

>

>

>

>

____________________

______________

> Fussy? Opinionated? Impossible to please? Perfect. Join 's

user panel and lay it on us.

http://surveylink./gmrs/_panel_invite.asp?a=7

>

[Guest guest]

Dear Kolachina ji,

 

Thanks for your words of wisdom. This has made me even more

resolute in my approach. The CRF approach seems to be very

logical. Thanks for sharing this. Congratulations on 95%

accurate predictions. That is a big feat and it can only come

with lot of experience. I started studying astrology only since

2005. I guess I have a long way to go before I get that level of

accuracy in my predictions.

 

I have a request. I have put up a couple of articles in my blog

- http://astrokrishna.blogspot.com When you have time, please go

through them and pass your valuable comments to me, specially if

I am making any glaring mistakes or wrong assumptions. That will

help me in my learning process.

 

Look forward to hearing from you.

 

Regards,

Krishna

 

 

 

 

--- Satya Sai Kolachina <skolachi wrote:

 

> Dear Sri Krishnamurthy,

>

> That is a good approach, as I do normally. As you mentioned,

> the key

> is that 'We may not (most probably do not) understand what the

> sages

> said exactly. In fact, Sri KN Rao clearly passed several

> messaages

> through his books and articles. (a) We need to take the CRF

> approach;

> which means Classical rules - giving them a Romantic twist -

> and

> apply Formula cliching; (b) He never suggested blind

> application of

> rules from classical granthas; rather he said, by applying CRF

>

> approach we can use classical rules with confidence; I liked

> that

> statement and found almost 95+% accuracy in my predictions;

> © He

> used aspects in Navamsa chart and clearly said that yogas

> present in

> Rasi chart must be double-checked for their existence/support

> in the

> Navamsa chart. If you do not make navamsa chart and if you do

> not

> consider aspects therein, how do you look for yogas?

> Considering the

> aspects and yogas in the navamsa charts is not something a new

> or

> modern concept; it has been there since ages and many ancient

> astrologers have done so. Those who argue gainst using Navams

> chart

> propse that the amsas be looked into the rasi chart; that is

> also

> true; in fact what they are propounding is nothing but the

> theory of

> dispositors - like navamsa dispositor of 7th lord, navamsa

> dispositor

> of 10th lord etc. That is also a valid rule to check for. That

> is why

> earlier I said, both are valid and should be used in a

> composite

> approach, as always said by Sri KN Rao. Ignoring Navamsa chart

>

> totally will be the biggest blunder any astrologer would do.

> It they

> prefer to do so; I have no objection; it is their choice.

>

> I personally consider navamsa chart along with rasi chart

> (with the

> same level of importance as given by Sri KN Rao), and I also

> consider

> the condition of navamsa dispositors in the rasi chart. this

> gives

> much better picture than when we completely ignore navamsa

> chart.

>

> I will write more later ...

> Best regards,

> Satya S Kolachina

>

>

> , Krishnamurthy Seetharama

> <krishna_1998 wrote:

> >

> > Dear Kolachina ji,

> >

> > Yes, I agree with you. It appears that this debate will go

> on

> > till both sides get tired. I am pretty clear about the path

> I

> > have chosen. It works for me and that is what matters the

> most.

> > I give more importance to what the charts indicate than what

> is

> > said in the texts (By no way I am disrespecting our sages by

> > saying this, because it is possible that we have not

> understood

> > them correctly). I believe that Truth lies in reality and

> and

> > reality lies in the charts. And, I have seen that the

> relations

> > of planets in Navamsha play an important role. I don't need

> more

> > evidence. When I raised the question, I was not looking for

> > evidence, I only wanted to understand the reasons behind

> such a

> > reality. But, I failed to get the answer.

> >

> > Regards,

> > Krishna

> >

> >

> > --- Satya Sai Kolachina <skolachi wrote:

> >

> > > Dear Sri Krishnamurthy,

> > >

> > > This debate is never ending; since astrologers arguing on

> > > either side

> > > are strong in their opinions. It is upto the observers to

> > > decide

> > > which way to go, as you decided in your message below.

> > >

> > > But, it does not simply mean that those who do not reply

> are

> > > agreeing

> > > to the others message. I stopped interacting, as I have

> > > understood

> > > both sides arguments and made my own observation. Whatever

> I

> > > had to

> > > contribute I said in my two mails. I don't think this is

> ever

> > > going

> > > to end. If you are interested, please refer to the

> archives in

> > > this

> > > group, around a year and half ago; there was similar

> debate

> > > between

> > > Sri Vijaydas Pradeep (against the Navamsa or amsa charts

> in

> > > general)

> > > and Sri PVR Narasimha Rao (in support of the Navamsa or

> amsa

> > > charts

> > > in general). Both are learned, respected astrologers and

> have

> > > their

> > > own merits. This debate is not going to end, as it

> happened in

> > > the

> > > past. It only ends when people are one side are tired of

> > > arguing.

> > >

> > > A healthy debate is one where both the parties present

> their

> > > opinions, without giving a chance to anticipate credit for

> > > something

> > > they propose, or what they understood. WHen the credit is

> due,

> > > it

> > > automatically comes, according to astrology. Since we are

> all

> > > learners, this approach will bring out good aspects of the

> > > debate and

> > > the subject being debated; as we have been observing from

> the

> > > discussion from Sri Vijaydas Pradeep and Sri

> Chandrasekhar.

> > >

> > > I personally think the debate is not going to end, since

> both

> > > of them

> > > are strong in their opinions and I take value in both the

> > > views.

> > >

> > > Best regards,

> > >

> > > Satya S Kolachina

> > >

> > >

> > > , Krishnamurthy

> Seetharama

> > > <krishna_1998@> wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Dear All,

> > > >

> > > > As I was the one who started this thread, I must say

> that

> > > the

> > > > debate reamins inconclusive.

> > > >

> > > > It makes logical sense to say that one should not use

> > > aspects,

> > > > conjunctions etc. in D-charts as we are looking only at

> > > logical

> > > > positions of planets and not their physical positions

> like

> > > in

> > > > the Rasi chart. But, then why so many learned people who

> > > have

> > > > done succesful predictions consider aspects and

> conjunctions

> > > in

> > > > D-charts? Let me forget about all the other D-charts for

> now

> > > and

> > > > let me stick to only Navamsha as that is what we are

> > > discussing

> > > > in this thread.

> > > >

> > > > In mind, based on my learning, I felt that Navamsha

> charts

> > > are

> > > > at a different plane as compared to other D-charts and

> hence

> > > it

> > > > is allowed to look at aspects and conjunctions only in

> > > Navamsha

>

=== message truncated ===

 

 

 

______________________________\

____

Park yourself in front of a world of choices in alternative vehicles. Visit the

Auto Green Center.

http://autos./green_center/

[Guest guest]

Dear Satya ji

 

many thanks for sharing your experiences and interpretation mdoel.

 

Of course - when we consider D chart, we must also consider

dispositors in rashi and mutual positions (including d chart sign

from lagna in rashi). Both are mutually inclusive along with many

more methods.

 

regards / Prafulla

, " Satya Sai Kolachina "

<skolachi wrote:

>

> Dear Sri Krishnamurthy,

>

> That is a good approach, as I do normally. As you mentioned, the

key

> is that 'We may not (most probably do not) understand what the

sages

> said exactly. In fact, Sri KN Rao clearly passed several messaages

> through his books and articles. (a) We need to take the CRF

approach;

> which means Classical rules - giving them a Romantic twist - and

> apply Formula cliching; (b) He never suggested blind application

of

> rules from classical granthas; rather he said, by applying CRF

> approach we can use classical rules with confidence; I liked that

> statement and found almost 95+% accuracy in my predictions; © He

> used aspects in Navamsa chart and clearly said that yogas present

in

> Rasi chart must be double-checked for their existence/support in

the

> Navamsa chart. If you do not make navamsa chart and if you do not

> consider aspects therein, how do you look for yogas? Considering

the

> aspects and yogas in the navamsa charts is not something a new or

> modern concept; it has been there since ages and many ancient

> astrologers have done so. Those who argue gainst using Navams

chart

> propse that the amsas be looked into the rasi chart; that is also

> true; in fact what they are propounding is nothing but the theory

of

> dispositors - like navamsa dispositor of 7th lord, navamsa

dispositor

> of 10th lord etc. That is also a valid rule to check for. That is

why

> earlier I said, both are valid and should be used in a composite

> approach, as always said by Sri KN Rao. Ignoring Navamsa chart

> totally will be the biggest blunder any astrologer would do. It

they

> prefer to do so; I have no objection; it is their choice.

>

> I personally consider navamsa chart along with rasi chart (with

the

> same level of importance as given by Sri KN Rao), and I also

consider

> the condition of navamsa dispositors in the rasi chart. this gives

> much better picture than when we completely ignore navamsa chart.

>

> I will write more later ...

> Best regards,

> Satya S Kolachina

>

>

> , Krishnamurthy Seetharama

> <krishna_1998@> wrote:

> >

> > Dear Kolachina ji,

> >

> > Yes, I agree with you. It appears that this debate will go on

> > till both sides get tired. I am pretty clear about the path I

> > have chosen. It works for me and that is what matters the most.

> > I give more importance to what the charts indicate than what is

> > said in the texts (By no way I am disrespecting our sages by

> > saying this, because it is possible that we have not understood

> > them correctly). I believe that Truth lies in reality and and

> > reality lies in the charts. And, I have seen that the relations

> > of planets in Navamsha play an important role. I don't need more

> > evidence. When I raised the question, I was not looking for

> > evidence, I only wanted to understand the reasons behind such a

> > reality. But, I failed to get the answer.

> >

> > Regards,

> > Krishna

> >

> >

> > --- Satya Sai Kolachina <skolachi@> wrote:

> >

> > > Dear Sri Krishnamurthy,

> > >

> > > This debate is never ending; since astrologers arguing on

> > > either side

> > > are strong in their opinions. It is upto the observers to

> > > decide

> > > which way to go, as you decided in your message below.

> > >

> > > But, it does not simply mean that those who do not reply are

> > > agreeing

> > > to the others message. I stopped interacting, as I have

> > > understood

> > > both sides arguments and made my own observation. Whatever I

> > > had to

> > > contribute I said in my two mails. I don't think this is ever

> > > going

> > > to end. If you are interested, please refer to the archives in

> > > this

> > > group, around a year and half ago; there was similar debate

> > > between

> > > Sri Vijaydas Pradeep (against the Navamsa or amsa charts in

> > > general)

> > > and Sri PVR Narasimha Rao (in support of the Navamsa or amsa

> > > charts

> > > in general). Both are learned, respected astrologers and have

> > > their

> > > own merits. This debate is not going to end, as it happened in

> > > the

> > > past. It only ends when people are one side are tired of

> > > arguing.

> > >

> > > A healthy debate is one where both the parties present their

> > > opinions, without giving a chance to anticipate credit for

> > > something

> > > they propose, or what they understood. WHen the credit is due,

> > > it

> > > automatically comes, according to astrology. Since we are all

> > > learners, this approach will bring out good aspects of the

> > > debate and

> > > the subject being debated; as we have been observing from the

> > > discussion from Sri Vijaydas Pradeep and Sri Chandrasekhar.

> > >

> > > I personally think the debate is not going to end, since both

> > > of them

> > > are strong in their opinions and I take value in both the

> > > views.

> > >

> > > Best regards,

> > >

> > > Satya S Kolachina

> > >

> > >

> > > , Krishnamurthy Seetharama

> > > <krishna_1998@> wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Dear All,

> > > >

> > > > As I was the one who started this thread, I must say that

> > > the

> > > > debate reamins inconclusive.

> > > >

> > > > It makes logical sense to say that one should not use

> > > aspects,

> > > > conjunctions etc. in D-charts as we are looking only at

> > > logical

> > > > positions of planets and not their physical positions like

> > > in

> > > > the Rasi chart. But, then why so many learned people who

> > > have

> > > > done succesful predictions consider aspects and conjunctions

> > > in

> > > > D-charts? Let me forget about all the other D-charts for now

> > > and

> > > > let me stick to only Navamsha as that is what we are

> > > discussing

> > > > in this thread.

> > > >

> > > > In mind, based on my learning, I felt that Navamsha charts

> > > are

> > > > at a different plane as compared to other D-charts and hence

> > > it

> > > > is allowed to look at aspects and conjunctions only in

> > > Navamsha

> > > > and not in other D-Charts. I wanted to know the reasoning

> > > behind

> > > > this special treatment to Navamsha chart and hence raised

> > > this

> > > > question.

> > > >

> > > > I started learning Jyotish using Shri. B V Raman's books. He

> > > > uses Navamsa Chart like Rasi Chart for all practical

> > > purposes.

> > > > He has been considered as one of the pioneers in modern day

> > > > Astrology.

> > > >

> > > > I tend to agree with Prafulla. After all, why do we study

> > > this

> > > > science? The answer for me is that it shows the light and

> > > guides

> > > > me in my life. Hence, preditive part of the science is as of

> > > > paramount importance. I guess the only way to resolve this

> > > > deadlock is to take a bunch of charts (with reasonably

> > > accurate

> > > > birth data) and study them with and without using aspects

> > > and

> > > > conjunctions in Navamsha and explain the major events in

> > > life.

> > > >

> > > > I see no other way to end this debate.

> > > >

> > > > Regards,

> > > > Krishna

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > --- Prafulla Gang <jyotish@> wrote:

> > > >

> > > > > Dear Sreenadh ji

> > > > >

> > > > > Well - who knows the truth? - Should the person making

> > > > > comment, be construed to be as truth seeker - until they

> > > prove

> > > > > with the application of the principles on the charts (

> > > both

> > > > > ways - firstly the wrong application of others; and

> > > secondly

> > > > > how to read in correct way). Theorists without predictive

> > > > > support - has little relevance in jyotish. But yes - if

> > > you

> > > > > can justify your statements by case studies - then at

> > > least, I

> > > > > will hear with open mind.

> > > > >

> > > > > Understandably, I have been quoted to be " blind " to

> > > > > commentaries - but my submission is that - give me one

> > > reason

> > > > > to accept the views of " less read scholars " than to " well

> > > read

> > > > > scholars like Late Santhanam / Shri KN Rao / Shri Sanjay

> > > rath

> > > > > / many others " . and More so - as I do not " pretend " to

> > > know

> > > > > the sanskrit and do not " waste " my time on " shloka

> > > business "

> > > > > with my " incomplete knowledge " . So I am happy to be

> > > following

> > > > > better quality commentaries - who are expalining with the

> > > case

> > > > > studies.

> > > > >

> > > > > Of course - each one makes his choice.

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > regards / Prafulla Gang

> > > > > http://www.prafulla.net

> > > > >

> > > > > " Men who never get carried away should be. "

> > > > > ************************************************

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > > sreesog@

> > > > > > Thu, 05 Jul 2007 07:00:31 -0000

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Re: Why Navamsa Chart is so

> > > > > important?

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Dear Prafulla ji,

> > > > > > * Even if those things are not there in ancient texts

> > > every

> > > > > one is

> > > > > > free to make or follow there own choice - yes, there is

> > > > > every chance

> > > > > > that even such new methods might give true results -

> > > your

> > > > > argument is

> > > > > > right.

> > > > > > * As far Sanskrit is concerned: Yes, it is your choice

> > > -

> > > > > when you

> > > > > > are blind to read and understand Sanskrit your self, and

> > > > > understand

> > > > > > what is there and what not, of course you have to follow

> > > > > someone who

> > > > > > says they see - you are right in that as well.

> > > > > > Love,

> > > > > > Sreenadh

> > > > > >

> > > > > > , Prafulla Gang

> > > > > <jyotish@>

> > > > > > wrote:

> > > > > >>

> > > > > >> Well Sreenadh ji - at times, these issues become choice

> > > or

> > > > > > prejudices in our own form of reading model. Had there

> > > not

> > > > > been any

> > > > > > substance in interpreting D9 charts - lot many stalwarts

> > > > > must not

> > > > > > have explored it - and I presume - many of them know

> > > better

> > > > > > sanskrit / jyotish (rather both) than all of us on the

> > > forum

> > >

> > === message truncated ===

> >

> >

> >

> >

>

___________________

_

> ______________

> > Fussy? Opinionated? Impossible to please? Perfect. Join

's

> user panel and lay it on us.

> http://surveylink./gmrs/_panel_invite.asp?a=7

> >

>

[Guest guest]

Dear Satya ji

 

Thanks a lot for your balanced view.

 

If i may note,Raoji does not arrive at conclusions based on first

visit to dashamsha chakra as some astrologers do.

 

He arrives at all the major conclusions from rashi chakra.Then he

says the planet in own amsha in the 10th from lagna dashamsha make

is complete.

 

What i am saying is even this kendra is not considered the results

will certainyl fructify if rashi is strong and the planet has good

navamsha and additionaly dashamsha.Also there are 100's of other

ways to relate bhavas in rashi chakra and amshas.But how is that

possible to explain those and demonstare if some of us only wants to

see the aspects which are not present as per basic defintion and

never considerd by astrologers who libed 1000 of years ago.

Some independent dashamsha analysis etc have greatly afftected the

growth of many astrological students is my personal view.You see

once they work hard on 100's of charts and and evelop a habit they

can never correct.They all will become good post mortem experts.

 

I respect your balanced view.

Regds

Pradeep

 

I respect your views too. , " Satya

Sai Kolachina " <skolachi wrote:

>

> Dear Sri Krishnamurthy,

>

> That is a good approach, as I do normally. As you mentioned, the

key

> is that 'We may not (most probably do not) understand what the

sages

> said exactly. In fact, Sri KN Rao clearly passed several messaages

> through his books and articles. (a) We need to take the CRF

approach;

> which means Classical rules - giving them a Romantic twist - and

> apply Formula cliching; (b) He never suggested blind application

of

> rules from classical granthas; rather he said, by applying CRF

> approach we can use classical rules with confidence; I liked that

> statement and found almost 95+% accuracy in my predictions; © He

> used aspects in Navamsa chart and clearly said that yogas present

in

> Rasi chart must be double-checked for their existence/support in

the

> Navamsa chart. If you do not make navamsa chart and if you do not

> consider aspects therein, how do you look for yogas? Considering

the

> aspects and yogas in the navamsa charts is not something a new or

> modern concept; it has been there since ages and many ancient

> astrologers have done so. Those who argue gainst using Navams

chart

> propse that the amsas be looked into the rasi chart; that is also

> true; in fact what they are propounding is nothing but the theory

of

> dispositors - like navamsa dispositor of 7th lord, navamsa

dispositor

> of 10th lord etc. That is also a valid rule to check for. That is

why

> earlier I said, both are valid and should be used in a composite

> approach, as always said by Sri KN Rao. Ignoring Navamsa chart

> totally will be the biggest blunder any astrologer would do. It

they

> prefer to do so; I have no objection; it is their choice.

>

> I personally consider navamsa chart along with rasi chart (with

the

> same level of importance as given by Sri KN Rao), and I also

consider

> the condition of navamsa dispositors in the rasi chart. this gives

> much better picture than when we completely ignore navamsa chart.

>

> I will write more later ...

> Best regards,

> Satya S Kolachina

>

>

> , Krishnamurthy Seetharama

> <krishna_1998@> wrote:

> >

> > Dear Kolachina ji,

> >

> > Yes, I agree with you. It appears that this debate will go on

> > till both sides get tired. I am pretty clear about the path I

> > have chosen. It works for me and that is what matters the most.

> > I give more importance to what the charts indicate than what is

> > said in the texts (By no way I am disrespecting our sages by

> > saying this, because it is possible that we have not understood

> > them correctly). I believe that Truth lies in reality and and

> > reality lies in the charts. And, I have seen that the relations

> > of planets in Navamsha play an important role. I don't need more

> > evidence. When I raised the question, I was not looking for

> > evidence, I only wanted to understand the reasons behind such a

> > reality. But, I failed to get the answer.

> >

> > Regards,

> > Krishna

> >

> >

> > --- Satya Sai Kolachina <skolachi@> wrote:

> >

> > > Dear Sri Krishnamurthy,

> > >

> > > This debate is never ending; since astrologers arguing on

> > > either side

> > > are strong in their opinions. It is upto the observers to

> > > decide

> > > which way to go, as you decided in your message below.

> > >

> > > But, it does not simply mean that those who do not reply are

> > > agreeing

> > > to the others message. I stopped interacting, as I have

> > > understood

> > > both sides arguments and made my own observation. Whatever I

> > > had to

> > > contribute I said in my two mails. I don't think this is ever

> > > going

> > > to end. If you are interested, please refer to the archives in

> > > this

> > > group, around a year and half ago; there was similar debate

> > > between

> > > Sri Vijaydas Pradeep (against the Navamsa or amsa charts in

> > > general)

> > > and Sri PVR Narasimha Rao (in support of the Navamsa or amsa

> > > charts

> > > in general). Both are learned, respected astrologers and have

> > > their

> > > own merits. This debate is not going to end, as it happened in

> > > the

> > > past. It only ends when people are one side are tired of

> > > arguing.

> > >

> > > A healthy debate is one where both the parties present their

> > > opinions, without giving a chance to anticipate credit for

> > > something

> > > they propose, or what they understood. WHen the credit is due,

> > > it

> > > automatically comes, according to astrology. Since we are all

> > > learners, this approach will bring out good aspects of the

> > > debate and

> > > the subject being debated; as we have been observing from the

> > > discussion from Sri Vijaydas Pradeep and Sri Chandrasekhar.

> > >

> > > I personally think the debate is not going to end, since both

> > > of them

> > > are strong in their opinions and I take value in both the

> > > views.

> > >

> > > Best regards,

> > >

> > > Satya S Kolachina

> > >

> > >

> > > , Krishnamurthy Seetharama

> > > <krishna_1998@> wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Dear All,

> > > >

> > > > As I was the one who started this thread, I must say that

> > > the

> > > > debate reamins inconclusive.

> > > >

> > > > It makes logical sense to say that one should not use

> > > aspects,

> > > > conjunctions etc. in D-charts as we are looking only at

> > > logical

> > > > positions of planets and not their physical positions like

> > > in

> > > > the Rasi chart. But, then why so many learned people who

> > > have

> > > > done succesful predictions consider aspects and conjunctions

> > > in

> > > > D-charts? Let me forget about all the other D-charts for now

> > > and

> > > > let me stick to only Navamsha as that is what we are

> > > discussing

> > > > in this thread.

> > > >

> > > > In mind, based on my learning, I felt that Navamsha charts

> > > are

> > > > at a different plane as compared to other D-charts and hence

> > > it

> > > > is allowed to look at aspects and conjunctions only in

> > > Navamsha

> > > > and not in other D-Charts. I wanted to know the reasoning

> > > behind

> > > > this special treatment to Navamsha chart and hence raised

> > > this

> > > > question.

> > > >

> > > > I started learning Jyotish using Shri. B V Raman's books. He

> > > > uses Navamsa Chart like Rasi Chart for all practical

> > > purposes.

> > > > He has been considered as one of the pioneers in modern day

> > > > Astrology.

> > > >

> > > > I tend to agree with Prafulla. After all, why do we study

> > > this

> > > > science? The answer for me is that it shows the light and

> > > guides

> > > > me in my life. Hence, preditive part of the science is as of

> > > > paramount importance. I guess the only way to resolve this

> > > > deadlock is to take a bunch of charts (with reasonably

> > > accurate

> > > > birth data) and study them with and without using aspects

> > > and

> > > > conjunctions in Navamsha and explain the major events in

> > > life.

> > > >

> > > > I see no other way to end this debate.

> > > >

> > > > Regards,

> > > > Krishna

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > --- Prafulla Gang <jyotish@> wrote:

> > > >

> > > > > Dear Sreenadh ji

> > > > >

> > > > > Well - who knows the truth? - Should the person making

> > > > > comment, be construed to be as truth seeker - until they

> > > prove

> > > > > with the application of the principles on the charts (

> > > both

> > > > > ways - firstly the wrong application of others; and

> > > secondly

> > > > > how to read in correct way). Theorists without predictive

> > > > > support - has little relevance in jyotish. But yes - if

> > > you

> > > > > can justify your statements by case studies - then at

> > > least, I

> > > > > will hear with open mind.

> > > > >

> > > > > Understandably, I have been quoted to be " blind " to

> > > > > commentaries - but my submission is that - give me one

> > > reason

> > > > > to accept the views of " less read scholars " than to " well

> > > read

> > > > > scholars like Late Santhanam / Shri KN Rao / Shri Sanjay

> > > rath

> > > > > / many others " . and More so - as I do not " pretend " to

> > > know

> > > > > the sanskrit and do not " waste " my time on " shloka

> > > business "

> > > > > with my " incomplete knowledge " . So I am happy to be

> > > following

> > > > > better quality commentaries - who are expalining with the

> > > case

> > > > > studies.

> > > > >

> > > > > Of course - each one makes his choice.

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > regards / Prafulla Gang

> > > > > http://www.prafulla.net

> > > > >

> > > > > " Men who never get carried away should be. "

> > > > > ************************************************

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > > sreesog@

> > > > > > Thu, 05 Jul 2007 07:00:31 -0000

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Re: Why Navamsa Chart is so

> > > > > important?

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Dear Prafulla ji,

> > > > > > * Even if those things are not there in ancient texts

> > > every

> > > > > one is

> > > > > > free to make or follow there own choice - yes, there is

> > > > > every chance

> > > > > > that even such new methods might give true results -

> > > your

> > > > > argument is

> > > > > > right.

> > > > > > * As far Sanskrit is concerned: Yes, it is your choice

> > > -

> > > > > when you

> > > > > > are blind to read and understand Sanskrit your self, and

> > > > > understand

> > > > > > what is there and what not, of course you have to follow

> > > > > someone who

> > > > > > says they see - you are right in that as well.

> > > > > > Love,

> > > > > > Sreenadh

> > > > > >

> > > > > > , Prafulla Gang

> > > > > <jyotish@>

> > > > > > wrote:

> > > > > >>

> > > > > >> Well Sreenadh ji - at times, these issues become choice

> > > or

> > > > > > prejudices in our own form of reading model. Had there

> > > not

> > > > > been any

> > > > > > substance in interpreting D9 charts - lot many stalwarts

> > > > > must not

> > > > > > have explored it - and I presume - many of them know

> > > better

> > > > > > sanskrit / jyotish (rather both) than all of us on the

> > > forum

> > >

> > === message truncated ===

> >

> >

> >

> >

>

___________________

_

> ______________

> > Fussy? Opinionated? Impossible to please? Perfect. Join

's

> user panel and lay it on us.

> http://surveylink./gmrs/_panel_invite.asp?a=7

> >

>

[Guest guest]

Dear Sri Pradeep,

 

Thanks for your kind words.

 

I can reiterate, however, that Sri KN Rao discussed seeing yogas in

Navamsa chart, and in fact, insisted on the same, to arrive at a

prediction. Yogas in Navamsa make sense only if you consider relative

position and aspects and conjunctions in Navamsa chart. In this

context he gave importance to Navamsa chart, even though he used

extensively the concept of 'placement of navamsa dispositors in the

rasi chart'.

 

I am not that fortunate to meet him in person, but I am enough

fortunate to read almost all his books and articles published in

Journal of Astrology. He certainly used Navamsa chart.

 

Your reference to Dasamsa should be ok; as I did not see Dasamsa

playing as much role as Navamsa even in career matters.

 

I am giving here a reference from Sri KN Rao book 'Astrology, Destiny

and the Wheel of Time' - page 101 in chapter on Antardasa results. He

gave highest points 4 to shashtiyamsa, next highest 3.5 to birth

horoscope (which I am sure he is referring to Rasi) and the next

highest is 3 points to navamsa; these points are on a scale of 20;

together these three make 10.5 points out of 20; others he gave 1

point each to Hora, drekkana & trimsamsa, 2 points to shodasamsa and

finally he said half point each to remaining 'DIVISIONAL HOROSCOPES'.

Please note the used the word remaining DIVISIONAL HOROSCOPES. He

clearly supported divisional charts or amsa charts; there is no

question about it. I studied innumerable examples from all his

publications put together, where he has used Navamsa (sometimes other

amsa charts also). Also please note that he gave 3 and half points

only on a scale of 20 for just individual analysis at chart level;

however, in his famous composite approach, Rasi chart should be

considered with every divisional chart, undoubtedly. This certainly

shows that he gave substantial weight to divisional charts; certainly

not to the extent of neglecting them completely.

 

However, I agree with you on the point that some astrologers, who

have been habituated to see only the navamsa chart will certainly be

a threat to propagation of wrong message to the following generations

of astrologers; but at the same time, I do not support sending the

message that Navamsa chart should not be seen at all.

 

I personally appreciate your strong determination to search validity

of the shlokas, as well as your level of will power you are

demonstrating and wish you success in your pursuit. However, on a

practical ground, I try to understand the interpretations already

made by great astrologers of 20th century, like Sri DR Raman, Sri KN

Rao etc., who have demonstrated the practical use of astrology to

common man.

 

Best regards,

Satya S Kolachina

 

 

, " vijayadas_pradeep "

<vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

>

> Dear Satya ji

>

> Thanks a lot for your balanced view.

>

> If i may note,Raoji does not arrive at conclusions based on first

> visit to dashamsha chakra as some astrologers do.

>

> He arrives at all the major conclusions from rashi chakra.Then he

> says the planet in own amsha in the 10th from lagna dashamsha make

> is complete.

>

> What i am saying is even this kendra is not considered the results

> will certainyl fructify if rashi is strong and the planet has good

> navamsha and additionaly dashamsha.Also there are 100's of other

> ways to relate bhavas in rashi chakra and amshas.But how is that

> possible to explain those and demonstare if some of us only wants

to

> see the aspects which are not present as per basic defintion and

> never considerd by astrologers who libed 1000 of years ago.

> Some independent dashamsha analysis etc have greatly afftected the

> growth of many astrological students is my personal view.You see

> once they work hard on 100's of charts and and evelop a habit they

> can never correct.They all will become good post mortem experts.

>

> I respect your balanced view.

> Regds

> Pradeep

>

> I respect your views too.--- In

, " Satya

> Sai Kolachina " <skolachi@> wrote:

> >

> > Dear Sri Krishnamurthy,

> >

> > That is a good approach, as I do normally. As you mentioned, the

> key

> > is that 'We may not (most probably do not) understand what the

> sages

> > said exactly. In fact, Sri KN Rao clearly passed several

messaages

> > through his books and articles. (a) We need to take the CRF

> approach;

> > which means Classical rules - giving them a Romantic twist - and

> > apply Formula cliching; (b) He never suggested blind application

> of

> > rules from classical granthas; rather he said, by applying CRF

> > approach we can use classical rules with confidence; I liked that

> > statement and found almost 95+% accuracy in my predictions; ©

He

> > used aspects in Navamsa chart and clearly said that yogas present

> in

> > Rasi chart must be double-checked for their existence/support in

> the

> > Navamsa chart. If you do not make navamsa chart and if you do not

> > consider aspects therein, how do you look for yogas? Considering

> the

> > aspects and yogas in the navamsa charts is not something a new or

> > modern concept; it has been there since ages and many ancient

> > astrologers have done so. Those who argue gainst using Navams

> chart

> > propse that the amsas be looked into the rasi chart; that is also

> > true; in fact what they are propounding is nothing but the theory

> of

> > dispositors - like navamsa dispositor of 7th lord, navamsa

> dispositor

> > of 10th lord etc. That is also a valid rule to check for. That is

> why

> > earlier I said, both are valid and should be used in a composite

> > approach, as always said by Sri KN Rao. Ignoring Navamsa chart

> > totally will be the biggest blunder any astrologer would do. It

> they

> > prefer to do so; I have no objection; it is their choice.

> >

> > I personally consider navamsa chart along with rasi chart (with

> the

> > same level of importance as given by Sri KN Rao), and I also

> consider

> > the condition of navamsa dispositors in the rasi chart. this

gives

> > much better picture than when we completely ignore navamsa chart.

> >

> > I will write more later ...

> > Best regards,

> > Satya S Kolachina

> >

> >

> > , Krishnamurthy Seetharama

> > <krishna_1998@> wrote:

> > >

> > > Dear Kolachina ji,

> > >

> > > Yes, I agree with you. It appears that this debate will go on

> > > till both sides get tired. I am pretty clear about the path I

> > > have chosen. It works for me and that is what matters the most.

> > > I give more importance to what the charts indicate than what is

> > > said in the texts (By no way I am disrespecting our sages by

> > > saying this, because it is possible that we have not understood

> > > them correctly). I believe that Truth lies in reality and and

> > > reality lies in the charts. And, I have seen that the relations

> > > of planets in Navamsha play an important role. I don't need more

> > > evidence. When I raised the question, I was not looking for

> > > evidence, I only wanted to understand the reasons behind such a

> > > reality. But, I failed to get the answer.

> > >

> > > Regards,

> > > Krishna

> > >

> > >

> > > --- Satya Sai Kolachina <skolachi@> wrote:

> > >

> > > > Dear Sri Krishnamurthy,

> > > >

> > > > This debate is never ending; since astrologers arguing on

> > > > either side

> > > > are strong in their opinions. It is upto the observers to

> > > > decide

> > > > which way to go, as you decided in your message below.

> > > >

> > > > But, it does not simply mean that those who do not reply are

> > > > agreeing

> > > > to the others message. I stopped interacting, as I have

> > > > understood

> > > > both sides arguments and made my own observation. Whatever I

> > > > had to

> > > > contribute I said in my two mails. I don't think this is ever

> > > > going

> > > > to end. If you are interested, please refer to the archives in

> > > > this

> > > > group, around a year and half ago; there was similar debate

> > > > between

> > > > Sri Vijaydas Pradeep (against the Navamsa or amsa charts in

> > > > general)

> > > > and Sri PVR Narasimha Rao (in support of the Navamsa or amsa

> > > > charts

> > > > in general). Both are learned, respected astrologers and have

> > > > their

> > > > own merits. This debate is not going to end, as it happened in

> > > > the

> > > > past. It only ends when people are one side are tired of

> > > > arguing.

> > > >

> > > > A healthy debate is one where both the parties present their

> > > > opinions, without giving a chance to anticipate credit for

> > > > something

> > > > they propose, or what they understood. WHen the credit is due,

> > > > it

> > > > automatically comes, according to astrology. Since we are all

> > > > learners, this approach will bring out good aspects of the

> > > > debate and

> > > > the subject being debated; as we have been observing from the

> > > > discussion from Sri Vijaydas Pradeep and Sri Chandrasekhar.

> > > >

> > > > I personally think the debate is not going to end, since both

> > > > of them

> > > > are strong in their opinions and I take value in both the

> > > > views.

> > > >

> > > > Best regards,

> > > >

> > > > Satya S Kolachina

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > , Krishnamurthy Seetharama

> > > > <krishna_1998@> wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > > Dear All,

> > > > >

> > > > > As I was the one who started this thread, I must say that

> > > > the

> > > > > debate reamins inconclusive.

> > > > >

> > > > > It makes logical sense to say that one should not use

> > > > aspects,

> > > > > conjunctions etc. in D-charts as we are looking only at

> > > > logical

> > > > > positions of planets and not their physical positions like

> > > > in

> > > > > the Rasi chart. But, then why so many learned people who

> > > > have

> > > > > done succesful predictions consider aspects and conjunctions

> > > > in

> > > > > D-charts? Let me forget about all the other D-charts for now

> > > > and

> > > > > let me stick to only Navamsha as that is what we are

> > > > discussing

> > > > > in this thread.

> > > > >

> > > > > In mind, based on my learning, I felt that Navamsha charts

> > > > are

> > > > > at a different plane as compared to other D-charts and hence

> > > > it

> > > > > is allowed to look at aspects and conjunctions only in

> > > > Navamsha

> > > > > and not in other D-Charts. I wanted to know the reasoning

> > > > behind

> > > > > this special treatment to Navamsha chart and hence raised

> > > > this

> > > > > question.

> > > > >

> > > > > I started learning Jyotish using Shri. B V Raman's books. He

> > > > > uses Navamsa Chart like Rasi Chart for all practical

> > > > purposes.

> > > > > He has been considered as one of the pioneers in modern day

> > > > > Astrology.

> > > > >

> > > > > I tend to agree with Prafulla. After all, why do we study

> > > > this

> > > > > science? The answer for me is that it shows the light and

> > > > guides

> > > > > me in my life. Hence, preditive part of the science is as of

> > > > > paramount importance. I guess the only way to resolve this

> > > > > deadlock is to take a bunch of charts (with reasonably

> > > > accurate

> > > > > birth data) and study them with and without using aspects

> > > > and

> > > > > conjunctions in Navamsha and explain the major events in

> > > > life.

> > > > >

> > > > > I see no other way to end this debate.

> > > > >

> > > > > Regards,

> > > > > Krishna

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > --- Prafulla Gang <jyotish@> wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > > > Dear Sreenadh ji

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Well - who knows the truth? - Should the person making

> > > > > > comment, be construed to be as truth seeker - until they

> > > > prove

> > > > > > with the application of the principles on the charts (

> > > > both

> > > > > > ways - firstly the wrong application of others; and

> > > > secondly

> > > > > > how to read in correct way). Theorists without predictive

> > > > > > support - has little relevance in jyotish. But yes - if

> > > > you

> > > > > > can justify your statements by case studies - then at

> > > > least, I

> > > > > > will hear with open mind.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Understandably, I have been quoted to be " blind " to

> > > > > > commentaries - but my submission is that - give me one

> > > > reason

> > > > > > to accept the views of " less read scholars " than to " well

> > > > read

> > > > > > scholars like Late Santhanam / Shri KN Rao / Shri Sanjay

> > > > rath

> > > > > > / many others " . and More so - as I do not " pretend " to

> > > > know

> > > > > > the sanskrit and do not " waste " my time on " shloka

> > > > business "

> > > > > > with my " incomplete knowledge " . So I am happy to be

> > > > following

> > > > > > better quality commentaries - who are expalining with the

> > > > case

> > > > > > studies.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Of course - each one makes his choice.

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > > regards / Prafulla Gang

> > > > > > http://www.prafulla.net

> > > > > >

> > > > > > " Men who never get carried away should be. "

> > > > > > ************************************************

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > sreesog@

> > > > > > > Thu, 05 Jul 2007 07:00:31 -0000

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Re: Why Navamsa Chart is so

> > > > > > important?

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Dear Prafulla ji,

> > > > > > > * Even if those things are not there in ancient texts

> > > > every

> > > > > > one is

> > > > > > > free to make or follow there own choice - yes, there is

> > > > > > every chance

> > > > > > > that even such new methods might give true results -

> > > > your

> > > > > > argument is

> > > > > > > right.

> > > > > > > * As far Sanskrit is concerned: Yes, it is your choice

> > > > -

> > > > > > when you

> > > > > > > are blind to read and understand Sanskrit your self, and

> > > > > > understand

> > > > > > > what is there and what not, of course you have to follow

> > > > > > someone who

> > > > > > > says they see - you are right in that as well.

> > > > > > > Love,

> > > > > > > Sreenadh

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > , Prafulla Gang

> > > > > > <jyotish@>

> > > > > > > wrote:

> > > > > > >>

> > > > > > >> Well Sreenadh ji - at times, these issues become choice

> > > > or

> > > > > > > prejudices in our own form of reading model. Had there

> > > > not

> > > > > > been any

> > > > > > > substance in interpreting D9 charts - lot many stalwarts

> > > > > > must not

> > > > > > > have explored it - and I presume - many of them know

> > > > better

> > > > > > > sanskrit / jyotish (rather both) than all of us on the

> > > > forum

> > > >

> > > === message truncated ===

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> >

>

___________________

> _

> > ______________

> > > Fussy? Opinionated? Impossible to please? Perfect. Join

> 's

> > user panel and lay it on us.

> > http://surveylink./gmrs/_panel_invite.asp?a=7

> > >

> >

>

[Guest guest]

Please note a correction in the following sentense. Earlier I

used 'threat to' instead of 'threat by'. I apologize for the

typographical error. Pleaes read that sentence as retyped below:

 

" However, I agree with you on the point that some astrologers, who

have been habituated to see only the navamsa chart will certainly be

a threat by propagation of wrong message to the following generations

of astrologers "

 

 

, " Satya Sai Kolachina "

<skolachi wrote:

>

> Dear Sri Pradeep,

>

> Thanks for your kind words.

>

> I can reiterate, however, that Sri KN Rao discussed seeing yogas in

> Navamsa chart, and in fact, insisted on the same, to arrive at a

> prediction. Yogas in Navamsa make sense only if you consider

relative

> position and aspects and conjunctions in Navamsa chart. In this

> context he gave importance to Navamsa chart, even though he used

> extensively the concept of 'placement of navamsa dispositors in the

> rasi chart'.

>

> I am not that fortunate to meet him in person, but I am enough

> fortunate to read almost all his books and articles published in

> Journal of Astrology. He certainly used Navamsa chart.

>

> Your reference to Dasamsa should be ok; as I did not see Dasamsa

> playing as much role as Navamsa even in career matters.

>

> I am giving here a reference from Sri KN Rao book 'Astrology,

Destiny

> and the Wheel of Time' - page 101 in chapter on Antardasa results.

He

> gave highest points 4 to shashtiyamsa, next highest 3.5 to birth

> horoscope (which I am sure he is referring to Rasi) and the next

> highest is 3 points to navamsa; these points are on a scale of 20;

> together these three make 10.5 points out of 20; others he gave 1

> point each to Hora, drekkana & trimsamsa, 2 points to shodasamsa

and

> finally he said half point each to remaining 'DIVISIONAL

HOROSCOPES'.

> Please note the used the word remaining DIVISIONAL HOROSCOPES. He

> clearly supported divisional charts or amsa charts; there is no

> question about it. I studied innumerable examples from all his

> publications put together, where he has used Navamsa (sometimes

other

> amsa charts also). Also please note that he gave 3 and half points

> only on a scale of 20 for just individual analysis at chart level;

> however, in his famous composite approach, Rasi chart should be

> considered with every divisional chart, undoubtedly. This certainly

> shows that he gave substantial weight to divisional charts;

certainly

> not to the extent of neglecting them completely.

>

> However, I agree with you on the point that some astrologers, who

> have been habituated to see only the navamsa chart will certainly

be

> a threat to propagation of wrong message to the following

generations

> of astrologers; but at the same time, I do not support sending the

> message that Navamsa chart should not be seen at all.

>

> I personally appreciate your strong determination to search

validity

> of the shlokas, as well as your level of will power you are

> demonstrating and wish you success in your pursuit. However, on a

> practical ground, I try to understand the interpretations already

> made by great astrologers of 20th century, like Sri DR Raman, Sri

KN

> Rao etc., who have demonstrated the practical use of astrology to

> common man.

>

> Best regards,

> Satya S Kolachina

>

>

> , " vijayadas_pradeep "

> <vijayadas_pradeep@> wrote:

> >

> > Dear Satya ji

> >

> > Thanks a lot for your balanced view.

> >

> > If i may note,Raoji does not arrive at conclusions based on first

> > visit to dashamsha chakra as some astrologers do.

> >

> > He arrives at all the major conclusions from rashi chakra.Then he

> > says the planet in own amsha in the 10th from lagna dashamsha

make

> > is complete.

> >

> > What i am saying is even this kendra is not considered the

results

> > will certainyl fructify if rashi is strong and the planet has

good

> > navamsha and additionaly dashamsha.Also there are 100's of other

> > ways to relate bhavas in rashi chakra and amshas.But how is that

> > possible to explain those and demonstare if some of us only wants

> to

> > see the aspects which are not present as per basic defintion and

> > never considerd by astrologers who libed 1000 of years ago.

> > Some independent dashamsha analysis etc have greatly afftected

the

> > growth of many astrological students is my personal view.You see

> > once they work hard on 100's of charts and and evelop a habit

they

> > can never correct.They all will become good post mortem experts.

> >

> > I respect your balanced view.

> > Regds

> > Pradeep

> >

> > I respect your views too.--- In

> , " Satya

> > Sai Kolachina " <skolachi@> wrote:

> > >

> > > Dear Sri Krishnamurthy,

> > >

> > > That is a good approach, as I do normally. As you mentioned,

the

> > key

> > > is that 'We may not (most probably do not) understand what the

> > sages

> > > said exactly. In fact, Sri KN Rao clearly passed several

> messaages

> > > through his books and articles. (a) We need to take the CRF

> > approach;

> > > which means Classical rules - giving them a Romantic twist -

and

> > > apply Formula cliching; (b) He never suggested blind

application

> > of

> > > rules from classical granthas; rather he said, by applying CRF

> > > approach we can use classical rules with confidence; I liked

that

> > > statement and found almost 95+% accuracy in my predictions; ©

> He

> > > used aspects in Navamsa chart and clearly said that yogas

present

> > in

> > > Rasi chart must be double-checked for their existence/support

in

> > the

> > > Navamsa chart. If you do not make navamsa chart and if you do

not

> > > consider aspects therein, how do you look for yogas?

Considering

> > the

> > > aspects and yogas in the navamsa charts is not something a new

or

> > > modern concept; it has been there since ages and many ancient

> > > astrologers have done so. Those who argue gainst using Navams

> > chart

> > > propse that the amsas be looked into the rasi chart; that is

also

> > > true; in fact what they are propounding is nothing but the

theory

> > of

> > > dispositors - like navamsa dispositor of 7th lord, navamsa

> > dispositor

> > > of 10th lord etc. That is also a valid rule to check for. That

is

> > why

> > > earlier I said, both are valid and should be used in a

composite

> > > approach, as always said by Sri KN Rao. Ignoring Navamsa chart

> > > totally will be the biggest blunder any astrologer would do. It

> > they

> > > prefer to do so; I have no objection; it is their choice.

> > >

> > > I personally consider navamsa chart along with rasi chart (with

> > the

> > > same level of importance as given by Sri KN Rao), and I also

> > consider

> > > the condition of navamsa dispositors in the rasi chart. this

> gives

> > > much better picture than when we completely ignore navamsa

chart.

> > >

> > > I will write more later ...

> > > Best regards,

> > > Satya S Kolachina

> > >

> > >

> > > , Krishnamurthy Seetharama

> > > <krishna_1998@> wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Dear Kolachina ji,

> > > >

> > > > Yes, I agree with you. It appears that this debate will go on

> > > > till both sides get tired. I am pretty clear about the path I

> > > > have chosen. It works for me and that is what matters the

most.

> > > > I give more importance to what the charts indicate than what

is

> > > > said in the texts (By no way I am disrespecting our sages by

> > > > saying this, because it is possible that we have not

understood

> > > > them correctly). I believe that Truth lies in reality and and

> > > > reality lies in the charts. And, I have seen that the

relations

> > > > of planets in Navamsha play an important role. I don't need

more

> > > > evidence. When I raised the question, I was not looking for

> > > > evidence, I only wanted to understand the reasons behind such

a

> > > > reality. But, I failed to get the answer.

> > > >

> > > > Regards,

> > > > Krishna

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > --- Satya Sai Kolachina <skolachi@> wrote:

> > > >

> > > > > Dear Sri Krishnamurthy,

> > > > >

> > > > > This debate is never ending; since astrologers arguing on

> > > > > either side

> > > > > are strong in their opinions. It is upto the observers to

> > > > > decide

> > > > > which way to go, as you decided in your message below.

> > > > >

> > > > > But, it does not simply mean that those who do not reply are

> > > > > agreeing

> > > > > to the others message. I stopped interacting, as I have

> > > > > understood

> > > > > both sides arguments and made my own observation. Whatever I

> > > > > had to

> > > > > contribute I said in my two mails. I don't think this is

ever

> > > > > going

> > > > > to end. If you are interested, please refer to the archives

in

> > > > > this

> > > > > group, around a year and half ago; there was similar debate

> > > > > between

> > > > > Sri Vijaydas Pradeep (against the Navamsa or amsa charts in

> > > > > general)

> > > > > and Sri PVR Narasimha Rao (in support of the Navamsa or amsa

> > > > > charts

> > > > > in general). Both are learned, respected astrologers and

have

> > > > > their

> > > > > own merits. This debate is not going to end, as it happened

in

> > > > > the

> > > > > past. It only ends when people are one side are tired of

> > > > > arguing.

> > > > >

> > > > > A healthy debate is one where both the parties present

their

> > > > > opinions, without giving a chance to anticipate credit for

> > > > > something

> > > > > they propose, or what they understood. WHen the credit is

due,

> > > > > it

> > > > > automatically comes, according to astrology. Since we are

all

> > > > > learners, this approach will bring out good aspects of the

> > > > > debate and

> > > > > the subject being debated; as we have been observing from

the

> > > > > discussion from Sri Vijaydas Pradeep and Sri Chandrasekhar.

> > > > >

> > > > > I personally think the debate is not going to end, since

both

> > > > > of them

> > > > > are strong in their opinions and I take value in both the

> > > > > views.

> > > > >

> > > > > Best regards,

> > > > >

> > > > > Satya S Kolachina

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > , Krishnamurthy

Seetharama

> > > > > <krishna_1998@> wrote:

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Dear All,

> > > > > >

> > > > > > As I was the one who started this thread, I must say that

> > > > > the

> > > > > > debate reamins inconclusive.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > It makes logical sense to say that one should not use

> > > > > aspects,

> > > > > > conjunctions etc. in D-charts as we are looking only at

> > > > > logical

> > > > > > positions of planets and not their physical positions like

> > > > > in

> > > > > > the Rasi chart. But, then why so many learned people who

> > > > > have

> > > > > > done succesful predictions consider aspects and

conjunctions

> > > > > in

> > > > > > D-charts? Let me forget about all the other D-charts for

now

> > > > > and

> > > > > > let me stick to only Navamsha as that is what we are

> > > > > discussing

> > > > > > in this thread.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > In mind, based on my learning, I felt that Navamsha charts

> > > > > are

> > > > > > at a different plane as compared to other D-charts and

hence

> > > > > it

> > > > > > is allowed to look at aspects and conjunctions only in

> > > > > Navamsha

> > > > > > and not in other D-Charts. I wanted to know the reasoning

> > > > > behind

> > > > > > this special treatment to Navamsha chart and hence raised

> > > > > this

> > > > > > question.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > I started learning Jyotish using Shri. B V Raman's books.

He

> > > > > > uses Navamsa Chart like Rasi Chart for all practical

> > > > > purposes.

> > > > > > He has been considered as one of the pioneers in modern

day

> > > > > > Astrology.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > I tend to agree with Prafulla. After all, why do we study

> > > > > this

> > > > > > science? The answer for me is that it shows the light and

> > > > > guides

> > > > > > me in my life. Hence, preditive part of the science is as

of

> > > > > > paramount importance. I guess the only way to resolve this

> > > > > > deadlock is to take a bunch of charts (with reasonably

> > > > > accurate

> > > > > > birth data) and study them with and without using aspects

> > > > > and

> > > > > > conjunctions in Navamsha and explain the major events in

> > > > > life.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > I see no other way to end this debate.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Regards,

> > > > > > Krishna

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > > --- Prafulla Gang <jyotish@> wrote:

> > > > > >

> > > > > > > Dear Sreenadh ji

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Well - who knows the truth? - Should the person making

> > > > > > > comment, be construed to be as truth seeker - until they

> > > > > prove

> > > > > > > with the application of the principles on the charts (

> > > > > both

> > > > > > > ways - firstly the wrong application of others; and

> > > > > secondly

> > > > > > > how to read in correct way). Theorists without

predictive

> > > > > > > support - has little relevance in jyotish. But yes - if

> > > > > you

> > > > > > > can justify your statements by case studies - then at

> > > > > least, I

> > > > > > > will hear with open mind.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Understandably, I have been quoted to be " blind " to

> > > > > > > commentaries - but my submission is that - give me one

> > > > > reason

> > > > > > > to accept the views of " less read scholars " than

to " well

> > > > > read

> > > > > > > scholars like Late Santhanam / Shri KN Rao / Shri Sanjay

> > > > > rath

> > > > > > > / many others " . and More so - as I do not " pretend " to

> > > > > know

> > > > > > > the sanskrit and do not " waste " my time on " shloka

> > > > > business "

> > > > > > > with my " incomplete knowledge " . So I am happy to be

> > > > > following

> > > > > > > better quality commentaries - who are expalining with

the

> > > > > case

> > > > > > > studies.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Of course - each one makes his choice.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > regards / Prafulla Gang

> > > > > > > http://www.prafulla.net

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > " Men who never get carried away should be. "

> > > > > > > ************************************************

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > sreesog@

> > > > > > > > Thu, 05 Jul 2007 07:00:31 -0000

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Re: Why Navamsa Chart is so

> > > > > > > important?

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Dear Prafulla ji,

> > > > > > > > * Even if those things are not there in ancient texts

> > > > > every

> > > > > > > one is

> > > > > > > > free to make or follow there own choice - yes, there

is

> > > > > > > every chance

> > > > > > > > that even such new methods might give true results -

> > > > > your

> > > > > > > argument is

> > > > > > > > right.

> > > > > > > > * As far Sanskrit is concerned: Yes, it is your

choice

> > > > > -

> > > > > > > when you

> > > > > > > > are blind to read and understand Sanskrit your self,

and

> > > > > > > understand

> > > > > > > > what is there and what not, of course you have to

follow

> > > > > > > someone who

> > > > > > > > says they see - you are right in that as well.

> > > > > > > > Love,

> > > > > > > > Sreenadh

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > , Prafulla Gang

> > > > > > > <jyotish@>

> > > > > > > > wrote:

> > > > > > > >>

> > > > > > > >> Well Sreenadh ji - at times, these issues become

choice

> > > > > or

> > > > > > > > prejudices in our own form of reading model. Had there

> > > > > not

> > > > > > > been any

> > > > > > > > substance in interpreting D9 charts - lot many

stalwarts

> > > > > > > must not

> > > > > > > > have explored it - and I presume - many of them know

> > > > > better

> > > > > > > > sanskrit / jyotish (rather both) than all of us on the

> > > > > forum

> > > > >

> > > > === message truncated ===

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > >

> >

>

___________________

> > _

> > > ______________

> > > > Fussy? Opinionated? Impossible to please? Perfect. Join

> > 's

> > > user panel and lay it on us.

> > > http://surveylink./gmrs/_panel_invite.asp?a=7

> > > >

> > >

> >

>

[Guest guest]

Dear Sri Bhaskar,

 

Thanks for your kind words.

 

I said what I think and what I do. That is what I believe in. We can

achieve a lot when these three synchronize with one another; what we

think, what we say and what we do.

 

I am of the opinion that life is too short (particularly in this busy

modern era) and I cannot spend time investigating something where I

already have a lot more (given by great astrologers) to digest.

However, I appreciate those who attempt doing it.

 

Best regards,

 

Satya Sai Kolachina

 

 

, " Bhaskar " <bhaskar_jyotish

wrote:

>

> Dear Shri Satya Saiji,

>

>

> // I personally appreciate your strong determination to search

> validity > of the shlokas, as well as your level of will power

> you are demonstrating and wish you success in your pursuit //

>

> Well said.

>

> //However, on a

> practical ground, I try to understand the interpretations already

> made by great astrologers of 20th century, like Sri DR Raman, Sri KN

> Rao etc., who have demonstrated the practical use of astrology to

> common man.//

>

> Well said again.

>

> regards,

> bhaskar.

>

>

>

>

> , " Satya Sai Kolachina "

> <skolachi@> wrote:

> >

> > Dear Sri Pradeep,

> >

> > Thanks for your kind words.

> >

> > I can reiterate, however, that Sri KN Rao discussed seeing yogas

in

> > Navamsa chart, and in fact, insisted on the same, to arrive at a

> > prediction. Yogas in Navamsa make sense only if you consider

relative

> > position and aspects and conjunctions in Navamsa chart. In this

> > context he gave importance to Navamsa chart, even though he used

> > extensively the concept of 'placement of navamsa dispositors in

the

> > rasi chart'.

> >

> > I am not that fortunate to meet him in person, but I am enough

> > fortunate to read almost all his books and articles published in

> > Journal of Astrology. He certainly used Navamsa chart.

> >

> > Your reference to Dasamsa should be ok; as I did not see Dasamsa

> > playing as much role as Navamsa even in career matters.

> >

> > I am giving here a reference from Sri KN Rao book 'Astrology,

Destiny

> > and the Wheel of Time' - page 101 in chapter on Antardasa

results. He

> > gave highest points 4 to shashtiyamsa, next highest 3.5 to birth

> > horoscope (which I am sure he is referring to Rasi) and the next

> > highest is 3 points to navamsa; these points are on a scale of

20;

> > together these three make 10.5 points out of 20; others he gave 1

> > point each to Hora, drekkana & trimsamsa, 2 points to shodasamsa

and

> > finally he said half point each to remaining 'DIVISIONAL

HOROSCOPES'.

> > Please note the used the word remaining DIVISIONAL HOROSCOPES. He

> > clearly supported divisional charts or amsa charts; there is no

> > question about it. I studied innumerable examples from all his

> > publications put together, where he has used Navamsa (sometimes

other

> > amsa charts also). Also please note that he gave 3 and half

points

> > only on a scale of 20 for just individual analysis at chart

level;

> > however, in his famous composite approach, Rasi chart should be

> > considered with every divisional chart, undoubtedly. This

certainly

> > shows that he gave substantial weight to divisional charts;

certainly

> > not to the extent of neglecting them completely.

> >

> > However, I agree with you on the point that some astrologers, who

> > have been habituated to see only the navamsa chart will certainly

be

> > a threat to propagation of wrong message to the following

generations

> > of astrologers; but at the same time, I do not support sending

the

> > message that Navamsa chart should not be seen at all.

> >

> > I personally appreciate your strong determination to search

validity

> > of the shlokas, as well as your level of will power you are

> > demonstrating and wish you success in your pursuit. However, on a

> > practical ground, I try to understand the interpretations already

> > made by great astrologers of 20th century, like Sri DR Raman, Sri

KN

> > Rao etc., who have demonstrated the practical use of astrology to

> > common man.

> >

> > Best regards,

> > Satya S Kolachina

> >

> >

> > , " vijayadas_pradeep "

> > <vijayadas_pradeep@> wrote:

> > >

> > > Dear Satya ji

> > >

> > > Thanks a lot for your balanced view.

> > >

> > > If i may note,Raoji does not arrive at conclusions based on

first

> > > visit to dashamsha chakra as some astrologers do.

> > >

> > > He arrives at all the major conclusions from rashi chakra.Then

he

> > > says the planet in own amsha in the 10th from lagna dashamsha

make

> > > is complete.

> > >

> > > What i am saying is even this kendra is not considered the

results

> > > will certainyl fructify if rashi is strong and the planet has

good

> > > navamsha and additionaly dashamsha.Also there are 100's of

other

> > > ways to relate bhavas in rashi chakra and amshas.But how is

that

> > > possible to explain those and demonstare if some of us only

wants

> > to

> > > see the aspects which are not present as per basic defintion

and

> > > never considerd by astrologers who libed 1000 of years ago.

> > > Some independent dashamsha analysis etc have greatly afftected

the

> > > growth of many astrological students is my personal view.You

see

> > > once they work hard on 100's of charts and and evelop a habit

they

> > > can never correct.They all will become good post mortem experts.

> > >

> > > I respect your balanced view.

> > > Regds

> > > Pradeep

> > >

> > > I respect your views too.--- In

> > , " Satya

> > > Sai Kolachina " <skolachi@> wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Dear Sri Krishnamurthy,

> > > >

> > > > That is a good approach, as I do normally. As you mentioned,

the

> > > key

> > > > is that 'We may not (most probably do not) understand what

the

> > > sages

> > > > said exactly. In fact, Sri KN Rao clearly passed several

> > messaages

> > > > through his books and articles. (a) We need to take the CRF

> > > approach;

> > > > which means Classical rules - giving them a Romantic twist -

and

> > > > apply Formula cliching; (b) He never suggested blind

application

> > > of

> > > > rules from classical granthas; rather he said, by applying

CRF

> > > > approach we can use classical rules with confidence; I liked

that

> > > > statement and found almost 95+% accuracy in my predictions;

©

> > He

> > > > used aspects in Navamsa chart and clearly said that yogas

present

> > > in

> > > > Rasi chart must be double-checked for their existence/support

in

> > > the

> > > > Navamsa chart. If you do not make navamsa chart and if you do

not

> > > > consider aspects therein, how do you look for yogas?

Considering

> > > the

> > > > aspects and yogas in the navamsa charts is not something a

new or

> > > > modern concept; it has been there since ages and many ancient

> > > > astrologers have done so. Those who argue gainst using Navams

> > > chart

> > > > propse that the amsas be looked into the rasi chart; that is

also

> > > > true; in fact what they are propounding is nothing but the

theory

> > > of

> > > > dispositors - like navamsa dispositor of 7th lord, navamsa

> > > dispositor

> > > > of 10th lord etc. That is also a valid rule to check for.

That is

> > > why

> > > > earlier I said, both are valid and should be used in a

composite

> > > > approach, as always said by Sri KN Rao. Ignoring Navamsa

chart

> > > > totally will be the biggest blunder any astrologer would do.

It

> > > they

> > > > prefer to do so; I have no objection; it is their choice.

> > > >

> > > > I personally consider navamsa chart along with rasi chart

(with

> > > the

> > > > same level of importance as given by Sri KN Rao), and I also

> > > consider

> > > > the condition of navamsa dispositors in the rasi chart. this

> > gives

> > > > much better picture than when we completely ignore navamsa

chart.

> > > >

> > > > I will write more later ...

> > > > Best regards,

> > > > Satya S Kolachina

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > , Krishnamurthy Seetharama

> > > > <krishna_1998@> wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > > Dear Kolachina ji,

> > > > >

> > > > > Yes, I agree with you. It appears that this debate will go

on

> > > > > till both sides get tired. I am pretty clear about the path

I

> > > > > have chosen. It works for me and that is what matters the

most.

> > > > > I give more importance to what the charts indicate than

what is

> > > > > said in the texts (By no way I am disrespecting our sages by

> > > > > saying this, because it is possible that we have not

understood

> > > > > them correctly). I believe that Truth lies in reality and

and

> > > > > reality lies in the charts. And, I have seen that the

relations

> > > > > of planets in Navamsha play an important role. I don't need

more

> > > > > evidence. When I raised the question, I was not looking for

> > > > > evidence, I only wanted to understand the reasons behind

such a

> > > > > reality. But, I failed to get the answer.

> > > > >

> > > > > Regards,

> > > > > Krishna

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > --- Satya Sai Kolachina <skolachi@> wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > > > Dear Sri Krishnamurthy,

> > > > > >

> > > > > > This debate is never ending; since astrologers arguing on

> > > > > > either side

> > > > > > are strong in their opinions. It is upto the observers to

> > > > > > decide

> > > > > > which way to go, as you decided in your message below.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > But, it does not simply mean that those who do not reply

are

> > > > > > agreeing

> > > > > > to the others message. I stopped interacting, as I have

> > > > > > understood

> > > > > > both sides arguments and made my own observation.

Whatever I

> > > > > > had to

> > > > > > contribute I said in my two mails. I don't think this is

ever

> > > > > > going

> > > > > > to end. If you are interested, please refer to the

archives in

> > > > > > this

> > > > > > group, around a year and half ago; there was similar

debate

> > > > > > between

> > > > > > Sri Vijaydas Pradeep (against the Navamsa or amsa charts

in

> > > > > > general)

> > > > > > and Sri PVR Narasimha Rao (in support of the Navamsa or

amsa

> > > > > > charts

> > > > > > in general). Both are learned, respected astrologers and

have

> > > > > > their

> > > > > > own merits. This debate is not going to end, as it

happened in

> > > > > > the

> > > > > > past. It only ends when people are one side are tired of

> > > > > > arguing.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > A healthy debate is one where both the parties present

their

> > > > > > opinions, without giving a chance to anticipate credit for

> > > > > > something

> > > > > > they propose, or what they understood. WHen the credit is

due,

> > > > > > it

> > > > > > automatically comes, according to astrology. Since we are

all

> > > > > > learners, this approach will bring out good aspects of the

> > > > > > debate and

> > > > > > the subject being debated; as we have been observing from

the

> > > > > > discussion from Sri Vijaydas Pradeep and Sri

Chandrasekhar.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > I personally think the debate is not going to end, since

both

> > > > > > of them

> > > > > > are strong in their opinions and I take value in both the

> > > > > > views.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Best regards,

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Satya S Kolachina

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > > , Krishnamurthy

Seetharama

> > > > > > <krishna_1998@> wrote:

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Dear All,

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > As I was the one who started this thread, I must say

that

> > > > > > the

> > > > > > > debate reamins inconclusive.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > It makes logical sense to say that one should not use

> > > > > > aspects,

> > > > > > > conjunctions etc. in D-charts as we are looking only at

> > > > > > logical

> > > > > > > positions of planets and not their physical positions

like

> > > > > > in

> > > > > > > the Rasi chart. But, then why so many learned people who

> > > > > > have

> > > > > > > done succesful predictions consider aspects and

conjunctions

> > > > > > in

> > > > > > > D-charts? Let me forget about all the other D-charts

for now

> > > > > > and

> > > > > > > let me stick to only Navamsha as that is what we are

> > > > > > discussing

> > > > > > > in this thread.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > In mind, based on my learning, I felt that Navamsha

charts

> > > > > > are

> > > > > > > at a different plane as compared to other D-charts and

hence

> > > > > > it

> > > > > > > is allowed to look at aspects and conjunctions only in

> > > > > > Navamsha

> > > > > > > and not in other D-Charts. I wanted to know the

reasoning

> > > > > > behind

> > > > > > > this special treatment to Navamsha chart and hence

raised

> > > > > > this

> > > > > > > question.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > I started learning Jyotish using Shri. B V Raman's

books. He

> > > > > > > uses Navamsa Chart like Rasi Chart for all practical

> > > > > > purposes.

> > > > > > > He has been considered as one of the pioneers in modern

day

> > > > > > > Astrology.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > I tend to agree with Prafulla. After all, why do we

study

> > > > > > this

> > > > > > > science? The answer for me is that it shows the light

and

> > > > > > guides

> > > > > > > me in my life. Hence, preditive part of the science is

as of

> > > > > > > paramount importance. I guess the only way to resolve

this

> > > > > > > deadlock is to take a bunch of charts (with reasonably

> > > > > > accurate

> > > > > > > birth data) and study them with and without using

aspects

> > > > > > and

> > > > > > > conjunctions in Navamsha and explain the major events in

> > > > > > life.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > I see no other way to end this debate.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Regards,

> > > > > > > Krishna

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > --- Prafulla Gang <jyotish@> wrote:

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Dear Sreenadh ji

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Well - who knows the truth? - Should the person making

> > > > > > > > comment, be construed to be as truth seeker - until

they

> > > > > > prove

> > > > > > > > with the application of the principles on the charts (

> > > > > > both

> > > > > > > > ways - firstly the wrong application of others; and

> > > > > > secondly

> > > > > > > > how to read in correct way). Theorists without

predictive

> > > > > > > > support - has little relevance in jyotish. But yes -

if

> > > > > > you

> > > > > > > > can justify your statements by case studies - then at

> > > > > > least, I

> > > > > > > > will hear with open mind.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Understandably, I have been quoted to be " blind " to

> > > > > > > > commentaries - but my submission is that - give me one

> > > > > > reason

> > > > > > > > to accept the views of " less read scholars " than

to " well

> > > > > > read

> > > > > > > > scholars like Late Santhanam / Shri KN Rao / Shri

Sanjay

> > > > > > rath

> > > > > > > > / many others " . and More so - as I do not " pretend " to

> > > > > > know

> > > > > > > > the sanskrit and do not " waste " my time on " shloka

> > > > > > business "

> > > > > > > > with my " incomplete knowledge " . So I am happy to be

> > > > > > following

> > > > > > > > better quality commentaries - who are expalining with

the

> > > > > > case

> > > > > > > > studies.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Of course - each one makes his choice.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > regards / Prafulla Gang

> > > > > > > > http://www.prafulla.net

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > " Men who never get carried away should be. "

> > > > > > > > ************************************************

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > sreesog@

> > > > > > > > > Thu, 05 Jul 2007 07:00:31 -0000

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Re: Why Navamsa Chart is so

> > > > > > > > important?

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Dear Prafulla ji,

> > > > > > > > > * Even if those things are not there in ancient

texts

> > > > > > every

> > > > > > > > one is

> > > > > > > > > free to make or follow there own choice - yes,

there is

> > > > > > > > every chance

> > > > > > > > > that even such new methods might give true results -

> > > > > > your

> > > > > > > > argument is

> > > > > > > > > right.

> > > > > > > > > * As far Sanskrit is concerned: Yes, it is your

choice

> > > > > > -

> > > > > > > > when you

> > > > > > > > > are blind to read and understand Sanskrit your

self, and

> > > > > > > > understand

> > > > > > > > > what is there and what not, of course you have to

follow

> > > > > > > > someone who

> > > > > > > > > says they see - you are right in that as well.

> > > > > > > > > Love,

> > > > > > > > > Sreenadh

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > , Prafulla Gang

> > > > > > > > <jyotish@>

> > > > > > > > > wrote:

> > > > > > > > >>

> > > > > > > > >> Well Sreenadh ji - at times, these issues become

choice

> > > > > > or

> > > > > > > > > prejudices in our own form of reading model. Had

there

> > > > > > not

> > > > > > > > been any

> > > > > > > > > substance in interpreting D9 charts - lot many

stalwarts

> > > > > > > > must not

> > > > > > > > > have explored it - and I presume - many of them know

> > > > > > better

> > > > > > > > > sanskrit / jyotish (rather both) than all of us on

the

> > > > > > forum

> > > > > >

> > > > > === message truncated ===

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > >

> >

___________________

> > > _

> > > > ______________

> > > > > Fussy? Opinionated? Impossible to please? Perfect. Join

> > > 's

> > > > user panel and lay it on us.

> > > > http://surveylink./gmrs/_panel_invite.asp?a=7

> > > > >

> > > >

> > >

> >

>

[Guest guest]

Dear shri Saya ji

 

Your view is respected.

Just beacause a beginenr like me is talking ,you need not discoutn

great astrologers like Raoji.He was humble and had enough humility

to write to me on many occassions.Who am i? but still he wrote ,may

be based on my genuine interest.I am a fan of Raoji becuase of his

predictive success and Vagbala.

 

But from what i have found,his success is beacause of understanding

the basics and observing the effects of planetary

interrelationships vis-a-vis dashas and transits on many jatakas

over a number of years.As a student my approach too is same.

 

Though he considers divsional charts,my (personal) feeling is if his

basic rules of placement ,aspect,conjunction house,trasnit,dasha etc

are combined with amshas(not charts) he will still get the results.

 

On the other hands people proliferating theories over varga charts

are indeed confusing people ,as some students think if they go to a

dashamsha chakra they can see everything relating to profession.

 

We should why we do not have refernce about 10th in ''navamsha

chakra'' in any book.But why do we have navamsha dispositior of 10th

lord mwentioned in books.

 

Rashi/Kshethra/Riksha/Bhavana are same thus Bhava has to bee seen in

Rashi chakra is my view.This has been the demonstartion of classical

examples in the books that i have read.

 

Now as you say,yogas are happening within a rashi which is identical

with amshas.Though the planets are not uniting,they influence the

said rashi ,which will be a certain house in rashi chakra and will

have effects.Thus if you see these yogas as amshas happening within

a house in rashi chakra it has meaning.

 

Bhrigwonkaraka Varge is an example of navamsha yoga.Sage is saying

in the second rashi from karakamsha rashi,if mars and veus are

havign amsha - one will have interest in para daarika.In the very

next line he says if these venus and mars are having yuti in the

second rashi or is aspecting there then this habit is until death.

Now why is this concept difficult to understand.we think navamsha as

a seperate chart and is not prepared to follow the first defintion -

meshadi rashige swamshe.

 

But as you have said you can experiment and conclude.This is a right

approach.I thank you for the sincerity and kindness in listening.You

amy understand how much time it demands to read shlokas and present

them logically as compared to ape and ignore.

 

Thanks again

Pradeep

 

, " Satya Sai Kolachina "

<skolachi wrote:

>

> Dear Sri Pradeep,

>

> Thanks for your kind words.

>

> I can reiterate, however, that Sri KN Rao discussed seeing yogas

in

> Navamsa chart, and in fact, insisted on the same, to arrive at a

> prediction. Yogas in Navamsa make sense only if you consider

relative

> position and aspects and conjunctions in Navamsa chart. In this

> context he gave importance to Navamsa chart, even though he used

> extensively the concept of 'placement of navamsa dispositors in

the

> rasi chart'.

>

> I am not that fortunate to meet him in person, but I am enough

> fortunate to read almost all his books and articles published in

> Journal of Astrology. He certainly used Navamsa chart.

>

> Your reference to Dasamsa should be ok; as I did not see Dasamsa

> playing as much role as Navamsa even in career matters.

>

> I am giving here a reference from Sri KN Rao book 'Astrology,

Destiny

> and the Wheel of Time' - page 101 in chapter on Antardasa results.

He

> gave highest points 4 to shashtiyamsa, next highest 3.5 to birth

> horoscope (which I am sure he is referring to Rasi) and the next

> highest is 3 points to navamsa; these points are on a scale of 20;

> together these three make 10.5 points out of 20; others he gave 1

> point each to Hora, drekkana & trimsamsa, 2 points to shodasamsa

and

> finally he said half point each to remaining 'DIVISIONAL

HOROSCOPES'.

> Please note the used the word remaining DIVISIONAL HOROSCOPES. He

> clearly supported divisional charts or amsa charts; there is no

> question about it. I studied innumerable examples from all his

> publications put together, where he has used Navamsa (sometimes

other

> amsa charts also). Also please note that he gave 3 and half points

> only on a scale of 20 for just individual analysis at chart level;

> however, in his famous composite approach, Rasi chart should be

> considered with every divisional chart, undoubtedly. This

certainly

> shows that he gave substantial weight to divisional charts;

certainly

> not to the extent of neglecting them completely.

>

> However, I agree with you on the point that some astrologers, who

> have been habituated to see only the navamsa chart will certainly

be

> a threat to propagation of wrong message to the following

generations

> of astrologers; but at the same time, I do not support sending the

> message that Navamsa chart should not be seen at all.

>

> I personally appreciate your strong determination to search

validity

> of the shlokas, as well as your level of will power you are

> demonstrating and wish you success in your pursuit. However, on a

> practical ground, I try to understand the interpretations already

> made by great astrologers of 20th century, like Sri DR Raman, Sri

KN

> Rao etc., who have demonstrated the practical use of astrology to

> common man.

>

> Best regards,

> Satya S Kolachina

>

>

> , " vijayadas_pradeep "

> <vijayadas_pradeep@> wrote:

> >

> > Dear Satya ji

> >

> > Thanks a lot for your balanced view.

> >

> > If i may note,Raoji does not arrive at conclusions based on

first

> > visit to dashamsha chakra as some astrologers do.

> >

> > He arrives at all the major conclusions from rashi chakra.Then

he

> > says the planet in own amsha in the 10th from lagna dashamsha

make

> > is complete.

> >

> > What i am saying is even this kendra is not considered the

results

> > will certainyl fructify if rashi is strong and the planet has

good

> > navamsha and additionaly dashamsha.Also there are 100's of other

> > ways to relate bhavas in rashi chakra and amshas.But how is that

> > possible to explain those and demonstare if some of us only

wants

> to

> > see the aspects which are not present as per basic defintion and

> > never considerd by astrologers who libed 1000 of years ago.

> > Some independent dashamsha analysis etc have greatly afftected

the

> > growth of many astrological students is my personal view.You see

> > once they work hard on 100's of charts and and evelop a habit

they

> > can never correct.They all will become good post mortem experts.

> >

> > I respect your balanced view.

> > Regds

> > Pradeep

> >

> > I respect your views too.--- In

> , " Satya

> > Sai Kolachina " <skolachi@> wrote:

> > >

> > > Dear Sri Krishnamurthy,

> > >

> > > That is a good approach, as I do normally. As you mentioned,

the

> > key

> > > is that 'We may not (most probably do not) understand what the

> > sages

> > > said exactly. In fact, Sri KN Rao clearly passed several

> messaages

> > > through his books and articles. (a) We need to take the CRF

> > approach;

> > > which means Classical rules - giving them a Romantic twist -

and

> > > apply Formula cliching; (b) He never suggested blind

application

> > of

> > > rules from classical granthas; rather he said, by applying CRF

> > > approach we can use classical rules with confidence; I liked

that

> > > statement and found almost 95+% accuracy in my predictions;

©

> He

> > > used aspects in Navamsa chart and clearly said that yogas

present

> > in

> > > Rasi chart must be double-checked for their existence/support

in

> > the

> > > Navamsa chart. If you do not make navamsa chart and if you do

not

> > > consider aspects therein, how do you look for yogas?

Considering

> > the

> > > aspects and yogas in the navamsa charts is not something a new

or

> > > modern concept; it has been there since ages and many ancient

> > > astrologers have done so. Those who argue gainst using Navams

> > chart

> > > propse that the amsas be looked into the rasi chart; that is

also

> > > true; in fact what they are propounding is nothing but the

theory

> > of

> > > dispositors - like navamsa dispositor of 7th lord, navamsa

> > dispositor

> > > of 10th lord etc. That is also a valid rule to check for. That

is

> > why

> > > earlier I said, both are valid and should be used in a

composite

> > > approach, as always said by Sri KN Rao. Ignoring Navamsa chart

> > > totally will be the biggest blunder any astrologer would do.

It

> > they

> > > prefer to do so; I have no objection; it is their choice.

> > >

> > > I personally consider navamsa chart along with rasi chart

(with

> > the

> > > same level of importance as given by Sri KN Rao), and I also

> > consider

> > > the condition of navamsa dispositors in the rasi chart. this

> gives

> > > much better picture than when we completely ignore navamsa

chart.

> > >

> > > I will write more later ...

> > > Best regards,

> > > Satya S Kolachina

> > >

> > >

> > > , Krishnamurthy Seetharama

> > > <krishna_1998@> wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Dear Kolachina ji,

> > > >

> > > > Yes, I agree with you. It appears that this debate will go on

> > > > till both sides get tired. I am pretty clear about the path I

> > > > have chosen. It works for me and that is what matters the

most.

> > > > I give more importance to what the charts indicate than what

is

> > > > said in the texts (By no way I am disrespecting our sages by

> > > > saying this, because it is possible that we have not

understood

> > > > them correctly). I believe that Truth lies in reality and and

> > > > reality lies in the charts. And, I have seen that the

relations

> > > > of planets in Navamsha play an important role. I don't need

more

> > > > evidence. When I raised the question, I was not looking for

> > > > evidence, I only wanted to understand the reasons behind

such a

> > > > reality. But, I failed to get the answer.

> > > >

> > > > Regards,

> > > > Krishna

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > --- Satya Sai Kolachina <skolachi@> wrote:

> > > >

> > > > > Dear Sri Krishnamurthy,

> > > > >

> > > > > This debate is never ending; since astrologers arguing on

> > > > > either side

> > > > > are strong in their opinions. It is upto the observers to

> > > > > decide

> > > > > which way to go, as you decided in your message below.

> > > > >

> > > > > But, it does not simply mean that those who do not reply

are

> > > > > agreeing

> > > > > to the others message. I stopped interacting, as I have

> > > > > understood

> > > > > both sides arguments and made my own observation. Whatever

I

> > > > > had to

> > > > > contribute I said in my two mails. I don't think this is

ever

> > > > > going

> > > > > to end. If you are interested, please refer to the

archives in

> > > > > this

> > > > > group, around a year and half ago; there was similar debate

> > > > > between

> > > > > Sri Vijaydas Pradeep (against the Navamsa or amsa charts in

> > > > > general)

> > > > > and Sri PVR Narasimha Rao (in support of the Navamsa or

amsa

> > > > > charts

> > > > > in general). Both are learned, respected astrologers and

have

> > > > > their

> > > > > own merits. This debate is not going to end, as it

happened in

> > > > > the

> > > > > past. It only ends when people are one side are tired of

> > > > > arguing.

> > > > >

> > > > > A healthy debate is one where both the parties present

their

> > > > > opinions, without giving a chance to anticipate credit for

> > > > > something

> > > > > they propose, or what they understood. WHen the credit is

due,

> > > > > it

> > > > > automatically comes, according to astrology. Since we are

all

> > > > > learners, this approach will bring out good aspects of the

> > > > > debate and

> > > > > the subject being debated; as we have been observing from

the

> > > > > discussion from Sri Vijaydas Pradeep and Sri Chandrasekhar.

> > > > >

> > > > > I personally think the debate is not going to end, since

both

> > > > > of them

> > > > > are strong in their opinions and I take value in both the

> > > > > views.

> > > > >

> > > > > Best regards,

> > > > >

> > > > > Satya S Kolachina

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > , Krishnamurthy

Seetharama

> > > > > <krishna_1998@> wrote:

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Dear All,

> > > > > >

> > > > > > As I was the one who started this thread, I must say that

> > > > > the

> > > > > > debate reamins inconclusive.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > It makes logical sense to say that one should not use

> > > > > aspects,

> > > > > > conjunctions etc. in D-charts as we are looking only at

> > > > > logical

> > > > > > positions of planets and not their physical positions

like

> > > > > in

> > > > > > the Rasi chart. But, then why so many learned people who

> > > > > have

> > > > > > done succesful predictions consider aspects and

conjunctions

> > > > > in

> > > > > > D-charts? Let me forget about all the other D-charts for

now

> > > > > and

> > > > > > let me stick to only Navamsha as that is what we are

> > > > > discussing

> > > > > > in this thread.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > In mind, based on my learning, I felt that Navamsha

charts

> > > > > are

> > > > > > at a different plane as compared to other D-charts and

hence

> > > > > it

> > > > > > is allowed to look at aspects and conjunctions only in

> > > > > Navamsha

> > > > > > and not in other D-Charts. I wanted to know the reasoning

> > > > > behind

> > > > > > this special treatment to Navamsha chart and hence raised

> > > > > this

> > > > > > question.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > I started learning Jyotish using Shri. B V Raman's

books. He

> > > > > > uses Navamsa Chart like Rasi Chart for all practical

> > > > > purposes.

> > > > > > He has been considered as one of the pioneers in modern

day

> > > > > > Astrology.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > I tend to agree with Prafulla. After all, why do we study

> > > > > this

> > > > > > science? The answer for me is that it shows the light and

> > > > > guides

> > > > > > me in my life. Hence, preditive part of the science is

as of

> > > > > > paramount importance. I guess the only way to resolve

this

> > > > > > deadlock is to take a bunch of charts (with reasonably

> > > > > accurate

> > > > > > birth data) and study them with and without using aspects

> > > > > and

> > > > > > conjunctions in Navamsha and explain the major events in

> > > > > life.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > I see no other way to end this debate.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Regards,

> > > > > > Krishna

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > > --- Prafulla Gang <jyotish@> wrote:

> > > > > >

> > > > > > > Dear Sreenadh ji

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Well - who knows the truth? - Should the person making

> > > > > > > comment, be construed to be as truth seeker - until

they

> > > > > prove

> > > > > > > with the application of the principles on the charts (

> > > > > both

> > > > > > > ways - firstly the wrong application of others; and

> > > > > secondly

> > > > > > > how to read in correct way). Theorists without

predictive

> > > > > > > support - has little relevance in jyotish. But yes - if

> > > > > you

> > > > > > > can justify your statements by case studies - then at

> > > > > least, I

> > > > > > > will hear with open mind.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Understandably, I have been quoted to be " blind " to

> > > > > > > commentaries - but my submission is that - give me one

> > > > > reason

> > > > > > > to accept the views of " less read scholars " than

to " well

> > > > > read

> > > > > > > scholars like Late Santhanam / Shri KN Rao / Shri

Sanjay

> > > > > rath

> > > > > > > / many others " . and More so - as I do not " pretend " to

> > > > > know

> > > > > > > the sanskrit and do not " waste " my time on " shloka

> > > > > business "

> > > > > > > with my " incomplete knowledge " . So I am happy to be

> > > > > following

> > > > > > > better quality commentaries - who are expalining with

the

> > > > > case

> > > > > > > studies.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Of course - each one makes his choice.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > regards / Prafulla Gang

> > > > > > > http://www.prafulla.net

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > " Men who never get carried away should be. "

> > > > > > > ************************************************

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > sreesog@

> > > > > > > > Thu, 05 Jul 2007 07:00:31 -0000

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Re: Why Navamsa Chart is so

> > > > > > > important?

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Dear Prafulla ji,

> > > > > > > > * Even if those things are not there in ancient

texts

> > > > > every

> > > > > > > one is

> > > > > > > > free to make or follow there own choice - yes, there

is

> > > > > > > every chance

> > > > > > > > that even such new methods might give true results -

> > > > > your

> > > > > > > argument is

> > > > > > > > right.

> > > > > > > > * As far Sanskrit is concerned: Yes, it is your

choice

> > > > > -

> > > > > > > when you

> > > > > > > > are blind to read and understand Sanskrit your self,

and

> > > > > > > understand

> > > > > > > > what is there and what not, of course you have to

follow

> > > > > > > someone who

> > > > > > > > says they see - you are right in that as well.

> > > > > > > > Love,

> > > > > > > > Sreenadh

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > , Prafulla Gang

> > > > > > > <jyotish@>

> > > > > > > > wrote:

> > > > > > > >>

> > > > > > > >> Well Sreenadh ji - at times, these issues become

choice

> > > > > or

> > > > > > > > prejudices in our own form of reading model. Had

there

> > > > > not

> > > > > > > been any

> > > > > > > > substance in interpreting D9 charts - lot many

stalwarts

> > > > > > > must not

> > > > > > > > have explored it - and I presume - many of them know

> > > > > better

> > > > > > > > sanskrit / jyotish (rather both) than all of us on

the

> > > > > forum

> > > > >

> > > > === message truncated ===

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > >

> >

>

___________________

> > _

> > > ______________

> > > > Fussy? Opinionated? Impossible to please? Perfect. Join

> > 's

> > > user panel and lay it on us.

> > > http://surveylink./gmrs/_panel_invite.asp?a=7

> > > >

> > >

> >

>

[Guest guest]

Dear Bhaskar ji

 

You don't have to beleive me.Try to get someone who is neutral and

see what saintly scholars living 1000's of years back had to

say.Especially as the leaf manuscripts are available.

Also see why Late Santhanam had concerns regarding Lagnashadvargake

shloka.

 

Views regarding Raoji and Dr.Raman are really true.If their

contributions were not there,including Shri Rath as well as the

software of PVR Rao along with the Gurus who are guiding me

including chandrashekhar ji, i would not have learned 1/4th of

astrology that i know by now.Thus i respect them perhaps more than

what you have expressed.

 

But that does not prevent us from looking further back.Those who

lived before 20th century.

 

Regds

Pradeep

 

, " Bhaskar " <bhaskar_jyotish

wrote:

>

> Dear Shri Satya Saiji,

>

>

> // I personally appreciate your strong determination to search

> validity > of the shlokas, as well as your level of will power

> you are demonstrating and wish you success in your pursuit //

>

> Well said.

>

> //However, on a

> practical ground, I try to understand the interpretations already

> made by great astrologers of 20th century, like Sri DR Raman, Sri

KN

> Rao etc., who have demonstrated the practical use of astrology to

> common man.//

>

> Well said again.

>

> regards,

> bhaskar.

>

>

>

>

> , " Satya Sai Kolachina "

> <skolachi@> wrote:

> >

> > Dear Sri Pradeep,

> >

> > Thanks for your kind words.

> >

> > I can reiterate, however, that Sri KN Rao discussed seeing yogas

in

> > Navamsa chart, and in fact, insisted on the same, to arrive at a

> > prediction. Yogas in Navamsa make sense only if you consider

relative

> > position and aspects and conjunctions in Navamsa chart. In this

> > context he gave importance to Navamsa chart, even though he used

> > extensively the concept of 'placement of navamsa dispositors in

the

> > rasi chart'.

> >

> > I am not that fortunate to meet him in person, but I am enough

> > fortunate to read almost all his books and articles published in

> > Journal of Astrology. He certainly used Navamsa chart.

> >

> > Your reference to Dasamsa should be ok; as I did not see Dasamsa

> > playing as much role as Navamsa even in career matters.

> >

> > I am giving here a reference from Sri KN Rao book 'Astrology,

Destiny

> > and the Wheel of Time' - page 101 in chapter on Antardasa

results. He

> > gave highest points 4 to shashtiyamsa, next highest 3.5 to birth

> > horoscope (which I am sure he is referring to Rasi) and the next

> > highest is 3 points to navamsa; these points are on a scale of

20;

> > together these three make 10.5 points out of 20; others he gave

1

> > point each to Hora, drekkana & trimsamsa, 2 points to shodasamsa

and

> > finally he said half point each to remaining 'DIVISIONAL

HOROSCOPES'.

> > Please note the used the word remaining DIVISIONAL HOROSCOPES.

He

> > clearly supported divisional charts or amsa charts; there is no

> > question about it. I studied innumerable examples from all his

> > publications put together, where he has used Navamsa (sometimes

other

> > amsa charts also). Also please note that he gave 3 and half

points

> > only on a scale of 20 for just individual analysis at chart

level;

> > however, in his famous composite approach, Rasi chart should be

> > considered with every divisional chart, undoubtedly. This

certainly

> > shows that he gave substantial weight to divisional charts;

certainly

> > not to the extent of neglecting them completely.

> >

> > However, I agree with you on the point that some astrologers,

who

> > have been habituated to see only the navamsa chart will

certainly be

> > a threat to propagation of wrong message to the following

generations

> > of astrologers; but at the same time, I do not support sending

the

> > message that Navamsa chart should not be seen at all.

> >

> > I personally appreciate your strong determination to search

validity

> > of the shlokas, as well as your level of will power you are

> > demonstrating and wish you success in your pursuit. However, on

a

> > practical ground, I try to understand the interpretations

already

> > made by great astrologers of 20th century, like Sri DR Raman,

Sri KN

> > Rao etc., who have demonstrated the practical use of astrology

to

> > common man.

> >

> > Best regards,

> > Satya S Kolachina

> >

> >

> > , " vijayadas_pradeep "

> > <vijayadas_pradeep@> wrote:

> > >

> > > Dear Satya ji

> > >

> > > Thanks a lot for your balanced view.

> > >

> > > If i may note,Raoji does not arrive at conclusions based on

first

> > > visit to dashamsha chakra as some astrologers do.

> > >

> > > He arrives at all the major conclusions from rashi chakra.Then

he

> > > says the planet in own amsha in the 10th from lagna dashamsha

make

> > > is complete.

> > >

> > > What i am saying is even this kendra is not considered the

results

> > > will certainyl fructify if rashi is strong and the planet has

good

> > > navamsha and additionaly dashamsha.Also there are 100's of

other

> > > ways to relate bhavas in rashi chakra and amshas.But how is

that

> > > possible to explain those and demonstare if some of us only

wants

> > to

> > > see the aspects which are not present as per basic defintion

and

> > > never considerd by astrologers who libed 1000 of years ago.

> > > Some independent dashamsha analysis etc have greatly afftected

the

> > > growth of many astrological students is my personal view.You

see

> > > once they work hard on 100's of charts and and evelop a habit

they

> > > can never correct.They all will become good post mortem

experts.

> > >

> > > I respect your balanced view.

> > > Regds

> > > Pradeep

> > >

> > > I respect your views too.--- In

> > , " Satya

> > > Sai Kolachina " <skolachi@> wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Dear Sri Krishnamurthy,

> > > >

> > > > That is a good approach, as I do normally. As you mentioned,

the

> > > key

> > > > is that 'We may not (most probably do not) understand what

the

> > > sages

> > > > said exactly. In fact, Sri KN Rao clearly passed several

> > messaages

> > > > through his books and articles. (a) We need to take the CRF

> > > approach;

> > > > which means Classical rules - giving them a Romantic twist -

and

> > > > apply Formula cliching; (b) He never suggested blind

application

> > > of

> > > > rules from classical granthas; rather he said, by applying

CRF

> > > > approach we can use classical rules with confidence; I liked

that

> > > > statement and found almost 95+% accuracy in my predictions;

©

> > He

> > > > used aspects in Navamsa chart and clearly said that yogas

present

> > > in

> > > > Rasi chart must be double-checked for their

existence/support in

> > > the

> > > > Navamsa chart. If you do not make navamsa chart and if you

do not

> > > > consider aspects therein, how do you look for yogas?

Considering

> > > the

> > > > aspects and yogas in the navamsa charts is not something a

new or

> > > > modern concept; it has been there since ages and many

ancient

> > > > astrologers have done so. Those who argue gainst using

Navams

> > > chart

> > > > propse that the amsas be looked into the rasi chart; that is

also

> > > > true; in fact what they are propounding is nothing but the

theory

> > > of

> > > > dispositors - like navamsa dispositor of 7th lord, navamsa

> > > dispositor

> > > > of 10th lord etc. That is also a valid rule to check for.

That is

> > > why

> > > > earlier I said, both are valid and should be used in a

composite

> > > > approach, as always said by Sri KN Rao. Ignoring Navamsa

chart

> > > > totally will be the biggest blunder any astrologer would do.

It

> > > they

> > > > prefer to do so; I have no objection; it is their choice.

> > > >

> > > > I personally consider navamsa chart along with rasi chart

(with

> > > the

> > > > same level of importance as given by Sri KN Rao), and I also

> > > consider

> > > > the condition of navamsa dispositors in the rasi chart. this

> > gives

> > > > much better picture than when we completely ignore navamsa

chart.

> > > >

> > > > I will write more later ...

> > > > Best regards,

> > > > Satya S Kolachina

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > , Krishnamurthy

Seetharama

> > > > <krishna_1998@> wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > > Dear Kolachina ji,

> > > > >

> > > > > Yes, I agree with you. It appears that this debate will go

on

> > > > > till both sides get tired. I am pretty clear about the

path I

> > > > > have chosen. It works for me and that is what matters the

most.

> > > > > I give more importance to what the charts indicate than

what is

> > > > > said in the texts (By no way I am disrespecting our sages

by

> > > > > saying this, because it is possible that we have not

understood

> > > > > them correctly). I believe that Truth lies in reality and

and

> > > > > reality lies in the charts. And, I have seen that the

relations

> > > > > of planets in Navamsha play an important role. I don't

need more

> > > > > evidence. When I raised the question, I was not looking for

> > > > > evidence, I only wanted to understand the reasons behind

such a

> > > > > reality. But, I failed to get the answer.

> > > > >

> > > > > Regards,

> > > > > Krishna

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > --- Satya Sai Kolachina <skolachi@> wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > > > Dear Sri Krishnamurthy,

> > > > > >

> > > > > > This debate is never ending; since astrologers arguing on

> > > > > > either side

> > > > > > are strong in their opinions. It is upto the observers to

> > > > > > decide

> > > > > > which way to go, as you decided in your message below.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > But, it does not simply mean that those who do not reply

are

> > > > > > agreeing

> > > > > > to the others message. I stopped interacting, as I have

> > > > > > understood

> > > > > > both sides arguments and made my own observation.

Whatever I

> > > > > > had to

> > > > > > contribute I said in my two mails. I don't think this is

ever

> > > > > > going

> > > > > > to end. If you are interested, please refer to the

archives in

> > > > > > this

> > > > > > group, around a year and half ago; there was similar

debate

> > > > > > between

> > > > > > Sri Vijaydas Pradeep (against the Navamsa or amsa charts

in

> > > > > > general)

> > > > > > and Sri PVR Narasimha Rao (in support of the Navamsa or

amsa

> > > > > > charts

> > > > > > in general). Both are learned, respected astrologers and

have

> > > > > > their

> > > > > > own merits. This debate is not going to end, as it

happened in

> > > > > > the

> > > > > > past. It only ends when people are one side are tired of

> > > > > > arguing.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > A healthy debate is one where both the parties present

their

> > > > > > opinions, without giving a chance to anticipate credit

for

> > > > > > something

> > > > > > they propose, or what they understood. WHen the credit

is due,

> > > > > > it

> > > > > > automatically comes, according to astrology. Since we

are all

> > > > > > learners, this approach will bring out good aspects of

the

> > > > > > debate and

> > > > > > the subject being debated; as we have been observing

from the

> > > > > > discussion from Sri Vijaydas Pradeep and Sri

Chandrasekhar.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > I personally think the debate is not going to end, since

both

> > > > > > of them

> > > > > > are strong in their opinions and I take value in both the

> > > > > > views.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Best regards,

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Satya S Kolachina

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > > , Krishnamurthy

Seetharama

> > > > > > <krishna_1998@> wrote:

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Dear All,

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > As I was the one who started this thread, I must say

that

> > > > > > the

> > > > > > > debate reamins inconclusive.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > It makes logical sense to say that one should not use

> > > > > > aspects,

> > > > > > > conjunctions etc. in D-charts as we are looking only at

> > > > > > logical

> > > > > > > positions of planets and not their physical positions

like

> > > > > > in

> > > > > > > the Rasi chart. But, then why so many learned people

who

> > > > > > have

> > > > > > > done succesful predictions consider aspects and

conjunctions

> > > > > > in

> > > > > > > D-charts? Let me forget about all the other D-charts

for now

> > > > > > and

> > > > > > > let me stick to only Navamsha as that is what we are

> > > > > > discussing

> > > > > > > in this thread.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > In mind, based on my learning, I felt that Navamsha

charts

> > > > > > are

> > > > > > > at a different plane as compared to other D-charts and

hence

> > > > > > it

> > > > > > > is allowed to look at aspects and conjunctions only in

> > > > > > Navamsha

> > > > > > > and not in other D-Charts. I wanted to know the

reasoning

> > > > > > behind

> > > > > > > this special treatment to Navamsha chart and hence

raised

> > > > > > this

> > > > > > > question.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > I started learning Jyotish using Shri. B V Raman's

books. He

> > > > > > > uses Navamsa Chart like Rasi Chart for all practical

> > > > > > purposes.

> > > > > > > He has been considered as one of the pioneers in

modern day

> > > > > > > Astrology.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > I tend to agree with Prafulla. After all, why do we

study

> > > > > > this

> > > > > > > science? The answer for me is that it shows the light

and

> > > > > > guides

> > > > > > > me in my life. Hence, preditive part of the science is

as of

> > > > > > > paramount importance. I guess the only way to resolve

this

> > > > > > > deadlock is to take a bunch of charts (with reasonably

> > > > > > accurate

> > > > > > > birth data) and study them with and without using

aspects

> > > > > > and

> > > > > > > conjunctions in Navamsha and explain the major events

in

> > > > > > life.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > I see no other way to end this debate.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Regards,

> > > > > > > Krishna

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > --- Prafulla Gang <jyotish@> wrote:

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Dear Sreenadh ji

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Well - who knows the truth? - Should the person

making

> > > > > > > > comment, be construed to be as truth seeker - until

they

> > > > > > prove

> > > > > > > > with the application of the principles on the charts

(

> > > > > > both

> > > > > > > > ways - firstly the wrong application of others; and

> > > > > > secondly

> > > > > > > > how to read in correct way). Theorists without

predictive

> > > > > > > > support - has little relevance in jyotish. But yes -

if

> > > > > > you

> > > > > > > > can justify your statements by case studies - then at

> > > > > > least, I

> > > > > > > > will hear with open mind.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Understandably, I have been quoted to be " blind " to

> > > > > > > > commentaries - but my submission is that - give me

one

> > > > > > reason

> > > > > > > > to accept the views of " less read scholars " than

to " well

> > > > > > read

> > > > > > > > scholars like Late Santhanam / Shri KN Rao / Shri

Sanjay

> > > > > > rath

> > > > > > > > / many others " . and More so - as I do not " pretend "

to

> > > > > > know

> > > > > > > > the sanskrit and do not " waste " my time on " shloka

> > > > > > business "

> > > > > > > > with my " incomplete knowledge " . So I am happy to be

> > > > > > following

> > > > > > > > better quality commentaries - who are expalining

with the

> > > > > > case

> > > > > > > > studies.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Of course - each one makes his choice.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > regards / Prafulla Gang

> > > > > > > > http://www.prafulla.net

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > " Men who never get carried away should be. "

> > > > > > > > ************************************************

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > sreesog@

> > > > > > > > > Thu, 05 Jul 2007 07:00:31 -0000

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Re: Why Navamsa Chart is so

> > > > > > > > important?

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Dear Prafulla ji,

> > > > > > > > > * Even if those things are not there in ancient

texts

> > > > > > every

> > > > > > > > one is

> > > > > > > > > free to make or follow there own choice - yes,

there is

> > > > > > > > every chance

> > > > > > > > > that even such new methods might give true

results -

> > > > > > your

> > > > > > > > argument is

> > > > > > > > > right.

> > > > > > > > > * As far Sanskrit is concerned: Yes, it is your

choice

> > > > > > -

> > > > > > > > when you

> > > > > > > > > are blind to read and understand Sanskrit your

self, and

> > > > > > > > understand

> > > > > > > > > what is there and what not, of course you have to

follow

> > > > > > > > someone who

> > > > > > > > > says they see - you are right in that as well.

> > > > > > > > > Love,

> > > > > > > > > Sreenadh

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > , Prafulla Gang

> > > > > > > > <jyotish@>

> > > > > > > > > wrote:

> > > > > > > > >>

> > > > > > > > >> Well Sreenadh ji - at times, these issues become

choice

> > > > > > or

> > > > > > > > > prejudices in our own form of reading model. Had

there

> > > > > > not

> > > > > > > > been any

> > > > > > > > > substance in interpreting D9 charts - lot many

stalwarts

> > > > > > > > must not

> > > > > > > > > have explored it - and I presume - many of them

know

> > > > > > better

> > > > > > > > > sanskrit / jyotish (rather both) than all of us on

the

> > > > > > forum

> > > > > >

> > > > > === message truncated ===

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > >

> >

___________________

> > > _

> > > > ______________

> > > > > Fussy? Opinionated? Impossible to please? Perfect. Join

> > > 's

> > > > user panel and lay it on us.

> > > > http://surveylink./gmrs/_panel_invite.asp?a=7

> > > > >

> > > >

> > >

> >

>