Varge as Plural - Similar Example - Chandrashekhar ji

[Guest guest]

Dear Chandrashekhar ji

 

I will give you a relevant example to explain how VarGE can be used in

context of plural.

 

Lagna Shad-VargaKE - Is pointing to all vargas - Plural.You may note

that the grammatical ending is with ''E'' showing plurals too can be

expressed with such an ending.

 

Now from Vrishamsha''Ka'' and Tulamsha example we can conclude that

VargaKA and VarGA can be used for the same purpose in Ekavachan or

singular form and VargaKE and VarGE can be used for Bahuvachan or

Plural form.

 

I hope this may help us in resolving our issue.

 

Respect

Pradeep

[Guest guest]

Dear Pradeep,

 

I may be wrong but the " E " by itself does not point to plural. It is the

word Shadvarga indicating 6 Vargas that is one group (though it contains

more than one unit) and so " Varge " , the singular is used with that. The

" E " means " in " . I would be happy if an example of " Varge " being plural

can be given.

 

I do not at all think that Vargaka or Varga is singular and Vargake or

Varge is plural, at all. Both the manner of using the word only

indicates singular. it is no use projecting what is clearly Saptami

vibhakti and singular as being a plural word. If Varga is to be used as

dvivachana it may become " VargyoH " or " VargeSu " (for bahuvachan) and not

Varge. Perhaps some Sanskrit scholar on the list would like to comment

on this.

 

So, much as I would like it to resolve, the issue remains unresolved.

 

Chandrashekhar.

 

 

 

Chandrashekhar.

 

vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

>

> Dear Chandrashekhar ji

>

> I will give you a relevant example to explain how VarGE can be used in

> context of plural.

>

> Lagna Shad-VargaKE - Is pointing to all vargas - Plural.You may note

> that the grammatical ending is with ''E'' showing plurals too can be

> expressed with such an ending.

>

> Now from Vrishamsha''Ka'' and Tulamsha example we can conclude that

> VargaKA and VarGA can be used for the same purpose in Ekavachan or

> singular form and VargaKE and VarGE can be used for Bahuvachan or

> Plural form.

>

> I hope this may help us in resolving our issue.

>

> Respect

> Pradeep

>

>

> ------

>

>

>

> Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.10.0/886 - Release 7/4/2007 1:40

PM

>

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Dear Chandrashekhar ji

 

Grammatically,what you are saying is also true.

 

But Jyotish defintions play a preceding role in choosing the

grammatical meaning.

 

For example one meaning of labhe ,Swamshe etc is in the 11th in

swamsha etc.

But if we go by that we will definitely translate swamshe in meshadi

rashige as ''in Swamsha'',thereby translating it as one full

chart.This as you too agree,then cannot pass the test,of the

subsequent shlokas.I understand gladly that you too agree that

swamsha and karakamsha are the same.

 

So the context decides plural/singular and not necessarily the ''E''

as you have rightly mentioned.

But in essence what i want to say is ''E'' does not always mean ''in

the'' as you have interpreted.Labheshe is an example.Karake is an

example.

Thus it can very well mean Varga of Shukra and Mars-which can then be

six vargas or one varga.(Not lordship)

 

Tatra Bhrigwonkaraka Varge -

 

Tatra -(There) In the second from Karakamsha

Varga or Vargas of Venus and Mars

 

Now why should we need two qualifiesrs for destination(1)In the 2nd

from karakamsha 2)in the vargas of?)-if we had another planet then

your interpretation is right.That planet will answer the question -

who is in the vargas of ?

 

Similarly - Swamshad dhane Shukrar

 

Swamshad dhane is already pointing to destination- why should we need

another ''in the'' vargas of.

 

On the other hand if we say in the 2nd from karakamsha if varga of

mars and venus are present,it fits in grammatically.Moreover as i had

mentioned rashi lordship without planetary link(placement/amsha etc)

is too general.

 

Respect

Pradeep

 

, Chandrashekhar

<chandrashekhar46 wrote:

>

> Dear Pradeep,

>

> I may be wrong but the " E " by itself does not point to plural. It

is the

> word Shadvarga indicating 6 Vargas that is one group (though it

contains

> more than one unit) and so " Varge " , the singular is used with that.

The

> " E " means " in " . I would be happy if an example of " Varge " being

plural

> can be given.

>

> I do not at all think that Vargaka or Varga is singular and Vargake

or

> Varge is plural, at all. Both the manner of using the word only

> indicates singular. it is no use projecting what is clearly Saptami

> vibhakti and singular as being a plural word. If Varga is to be

used as

> dvivachana it may become " VargyoH " or " VargeSu " (for bahuvachan)

and not

> Varge. Perhaps some Sanskrit scholar on the list would like to

comment

> on this.

>

> So, much as I would like it to resolve, the issue remains

unresolved.

>

> Chandrashekhar.

>

>

>

> Chandrashekhar.

>

> vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> >

> > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> >

> > I will give you a relevant example to explain how VarGE can be

used in

> > context of plural.

> >

> > Lagna Shad-VargaKE - Is pointing to all vargas - Plural.You may

note

> > that the grammatical ending is with ''E'' showing plurals too can

be

> > expressed with such an ending.

> >

> > Now from Vrishamsha''Ka'' and Tulamsha example we can conclude

that

> > VargaKA and VarGA can be used for the same purpose in Ekavachan or

> > singular form and VargaKE and VarGE can be used for Bahuvachan or

> > Plural form.

> >

> > I hope this may help us in resolving our issue.

> >

> > Respect

> > Pradeep

> >

> >

> >

------

> >

> >

> >

> > Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.10.0/886 - Release Date:

7/4/2007 1:40 PM

> >

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

dont do email me.

 

vijayadas_pradeep <vijayadas_pradeep wrote: Dear

Chandrashekhar ji

 

Grammatically,what you are saying is also true.

 

But Jyotish defintions play a preceding role in choosing the

grammatical meaning.

 

For example one meaning of labhe ,Swamshe etc is in the 11th in

swamsha etc.

But if we go by that we will definitely translate swamshe in meshadi

rashige as ''in Swamsha'',thereby translating it as one full

chart.This as you too agree,then cannot pass the test,of the

subsequent shlokas.I understand gladly that you too agree that

swamsha and karakamsha are the same.

 

So the context decides plural/singular and not necessarily the ''E''

as you have rightly mentioned.

But in essence what i want to say is ''E'' does not always mean ''in

the'' as you have interpreted.Labheshe is an example.Karake is an

example.

Thus it can very well mean Varga of Shukra and Mars-which can then be

six vargas or one varga.(Not lordship)

 

Tatra Bhrigwonkaraka Varge -

 

Tatra -(There) In the second from Karakamsha

Varga or Vargas of Venus and Mars

 

Now why should we need two qualifiesrs for destination(1)In the 2nd

from karakamsha 2)in the vargas of?)-if we had another planet then

your interpretation is right.That planet will answer the question -

who is in the vargas of ?

 

Similarly - Swamshad dhane Shukrar

 

Swamshad dhane is already pointing to destination- why should we need

another ''in the'' vargas of.

 

On the other hand if we say in the 2nd from karakamsha if varga of

mars and venus are present,it fits in grammatically.Moreover as i had

mentioned rashi lordship without planetary link(placement/amsha etc)

is too general.

 

Respect

Pradeep

 

, Chandrashekhar

<chandrashekhar46 wrote:

>

> Dear Pradeep,

>

> I may be wrong but the " E " by itself does not point to plural. It

is the

> word Shadvarga indicating 6 Vargas that is one group (though it

contains

> more than one unit) and so " Varge " , the singular is used with that.

The

> " E " means " in " . I would be happy if an example of " Varge " being

plural

> can be given.

>

> I do not at all think that Vargaka or Varga is singular and Vargake

or

> Varge is plural, at all. Both the manner of using the word only

> indicates singular. it is no use projecting what is clearly Saptami

> vibhakti and singular as being a plural word. If Varga is to be

used as

> dvivachana it may become " VargyoH " or " VargeSu " (for bahuvachan)

and not

> Varge. Perhaps some Sanskrit scholar on the list would like to

comment

> on this.

>

> So, much as I would like it to resolve, the issue remains

unresolved.

>

> Chandrashekhar.

>

>

>

> Chandrashekhar.

>

> vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> >

> > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> >

> > I will give you a relevant example to explain how VarGE can be

used in

> > context of plural.

> >

> > Lagna Shad-VargaKE - Is pointing to all vargas - Plural.You may

note

> > that the grammatical ending is with ''E'' showing plurals too can

be

> > expressed with such an ending.

> >

> > Now from Vrishamsha''Ka'' and Tulamsha example we can conclude

that

> > VargaKA and VarGA can be used for the same purpose in Ekavachan or

> > singular form and VargaKE and VarGE can be used for Bahuvachan or

> > Plural form.

> >

> > I hope this may help us in resolving our issue.

> >

> > Respect

> > Pradeep

> >

> >

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

------

> >

> >

> >

> > Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.10.0/886 - Release Date:

7/4/2007 1:40 PM

> >

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Dear Pradeep,

 

I have never said that I do not think that Swamsha and Karakamsha are

different where the context demands so. At the same time I do not think

grammar can be put to rest to in the name of context, without some sound

reason.

 

Of course if you want contextual translation only, then one can

certainly say that the " Meshadi raashige swaamshe " can always be

translated as " Falling in Mesha navamsha in Mesha rasi etc. " .

 

By the way " Tatra Bhrigwonkaraka Varge " , that you mention, does not

mean varga of both Venus and mars, but of varga of Venus OR Mars, due to

the grammar only. varga of two planets can not fall in one

bhava/amsha/rasi whether in rasi or Navamsha or any other chart.

 

Take care,

Chandrashekhar.

 

 

vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

>

> Dear Chandrashekhar ji

>

> Grammatically,what you are saying is also true.

>

> But Jyotish defintions play a preceding role in choosing the

> grammatical meaning.

>

> For example one meaning of labhe ,Swamshe etc is in the 11th in

> swamsha etc.

> But if we go by that we will definitely translate swamshe in meshadi

> rashige as ''in Swamsha'',thereby translating it as one full

> chart.This as you too agree,then cannot pass the test,of the

> subsequent shlokas.I understand gladly that you too agree that

> swamsha and karakamsha are the same.

>

> So the context decides plural/singular and not necessarily the ''E''

> as you have rightly mentioned.

> But in essence what i want to say is ''E'' does not always mean ''in

> the'' as you have interpreted.Labheshe is an example.Karake is an

> example.

> Thus it can very well mean Varga of Shukra and Mars-which can then be

> six vargas or one varga.(Not lordship)

>

> Tatra Bhrigwonkaraka Varge -

>

> Tatra -(There) In the second from Karakamsha

> Varga or Vargas of Venus and Mars

>

> Now why should we need two qualifiesrs for destination(1)In the 2nd

> from karakamsha 2)in the vargas of?)-if we had another planet then

> your interpretation is right.That planet will answer the question -

> who is in the vargas of ?

>

> Similarly - Swamshad dhane Shukrar

>

> Swamshad dhane is already pointing to destination- why should we need

> another ''in the'' vargas of.

>

> On the other hand if we say in the 2nd from karakamsha if varga of

> mars and venus are present,it fits in grammatically.Moreover as i had

> mentioned rashi lordship without planetary link(placement/amsha etc)

> is too general.

>

> Respect

> Pradeep

>

>

> <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> <chandrashekhar46 wrote:

> >

> > Dear Pradeep,

> >

> > I may be wrong but the " E " by itself does not point to plural. It

> is the

> > word Shadvarga indicating 6 Vargas that is one group (though it

> contains

> > more than one unit) and so " Varge " , the singular is used with that.

> The

> > " E " means " in " . I would be happy if an example of " Varge " being

> plural

> > can be given.

> >

> > I do not at all think that Vargaka or Varga is singular and Vargake

> or

> > Varge is plural, at all. Both the manner of using the word only

> > indicates singular. it is no use projecting what is clearly Saptami

> > vibhakti and singular as being a plural word. If Varga is to be

> used as

> > dvivachana it may become " VargyoH " or " VargeSu " (for bahuvachan)

> and not

> > Varge. Perhaps some Sanskrit scholar on the list would like to

> comment

> > on this.

> >

> > So, much as I would like it to resolve, the issue remains

> unresolved.

> >

> > Chandrashekhar.

> >

> >

> >

> > Chandrashekhar.

> >

> > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > >

> > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > >

> > > I will give you a relevant example to explain how VarGE can be

> used in

> > > context of plural.

> > >

> > > Lagna Shad-VargaKE - Is pointing to all vargas - Plural.You may

> note

> > > that the grammatical ending is with ''E'' showing plurals too can

> be

> > > expressed with such an ending.

> > >

> > > Now from Vrishamsha''Ka'' and Tulamsha example we can conclude

> that

> > > VargaKA and VarGA can be used for the same purpose in Ekavachan or

> > > singular form and VargaKE and VarGE can be used for Bahuvachan or

> > > Plural form.

> > >

> > > I hope this may help us in resolving our issue.

> > >

> > > Respect

> > > Pradeep

> > >

> > >

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

> ------

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.10.0/886 - Release Date:

> 7/4/2007 1:40 PM

> > >

> >

> >

> >

[Guest guest]

Dear Chandrashekhar ji

 

I though you meant so.Because in subsequent lines we can see Swamsha

and Karakamsha being used for the same purpose.But if you think

there are other places where swamsha is used for say Lagnamsha ,then

i can trust you if you can point me to that. This should not be a

problem and in no way it will affect us.

 

Venus and Mars can ofcourse have their Vargas in a single rashi or

Bhava.Venus can have navamsha there,Mars can have navamsha

there,Venus can have Trimshamsha there,Mars can have Trimshamsha

there,they both can have drekkana there etc etc.

 

Thus sage is talking about Bhrigu and Angara both (as you have

identified gramattically) having varga there and it is very much

possible.

 

If you note the next line -Sage is talking about both Venus and Mars

joining or aspecting the 2nd from Karakamsha.

 

From my experience -Mars + Venus creates certin behaviour.I feel you

too would have experienced this.Why are you going for the varga

owned by just one of them and that too without a planetary link is

really worrying me.Shri Rath has translated so,i agree.But i have an

inner feeling that Shri Rath will definitely correct this for the

benfit of jyotish community.

 

I am surprised as to why you say so.That they cannot have together.

 

Respect

Pardeep

 

 

 

, Chandrashekhar

<chandrashekhar46 wrote:

>

> Dear Pradeep,

>

> I have never said that I do not think that Swamsha and Karakamsha

are

> different where the context demands so. At the same time I do not

think

> grammar can be put to rest to in the name of context, without some

sound

> reason.

>

> Of course if you want contextual translation only, then one can

> certainly say that the " Meshadi raashige swaamshe " can always be

> translated as " Falling in Mesha navamsha in Mesha rasi etc. " .

>

> By the way " Tatra Bhrigwonkaraka Varge " , that you mention, does

not

> mean varga of both Venus and mars, but of varga of Venus OR Mars,

due to

> the grammar only. varga of two planets can not fall in one

> bhava/amsha/rasi whether in rasi or Navamsha or any other chart.

>

> Take care,

> Chandrashekhar.

>

>

> vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> >

> > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> >

> > Grammatically,what you are saying is also true.

> >

> > But Jyotish defintions play a preceding role in choosing the

> > grammatical meaning.

> >

> > For example one meaning of labhe ,Swamshe etc is in the 11th in

> > swamsha etc.

> > But if we go by that we will definitely translate swamshe in

meshadi

> > rashige as ''in Swamsha'',thereby translating it as one full

> > chart.This as you too agree,then cannot pass the test,of the

> > subsequent shlokas.I understand gladly that you too agree that

> > swamsha and karakamsha are the same.

> >

> > So the context decides plural/singular and not necessarily

the ''E''

> > as you have rightly mentioned.

> > But in essence what i want to say is ''E'' does not always

mean ''in

> > the'' as you have interpreted.Labheshe is an example.Karake is an

> > example.

> > Thus it can very well mean Varga of Shukra and Mars-which can

then be

> > six vargas or one varga.(Not lordship)

> >

> > Tatra Bhrigwonkaraka Varge -

> >

> > Tatra -(There) In the second from Karakamsha

> > Varga or Vargas of Venus and Mars

> >

> > Now why should we need two qualifiesrs for destination(1)In the

2nd

> > from karakamsha 2)in the vargas of?)-if we had another planet

then

> > your interpretation is right.That planet will answer the

question -

> > who is in the vargas of ?

> >

> > Similarly - Swamshad dhane Shukrar

> >

> > Swamshad dhane is already pointing to destination- why should we

need

> > another ''in the'' vargas of.

> >

> > On the other hand if we say in the 2nd from karakamsha if varga

of

> > mars and venus are present,it fits in grammatically.Moreover as

i had

> > mentioned rashi lordship without planetary link(placement/amsha

etc)

> > is too general.

> >

> > Respect

> > Pradeep

> >

> >

> > <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > >

> > > Dear Pradeep,

> > >

> > > I may be wrong but the " E " by itself does not point to plural.

It

> > is the

> > > word Shadvarga indicating 6 Vargas that is one group (though it

> > contains

> > > more than one unit) and so " Varge " , the singular is used with

that.

> > The

> > > " E " means " in " . I would be happy if an example of " Varge " being

> > plural

> > > can be given.

> > >

> > > I do not at all think that Vargaka or Varga is singular and

Vargake

> > or

> > > Varge is plural, at all. Both the manner of using the word only

> > > indicates singular. it is no use projecting what is clearly

Saptami

> > > vibhakti and singular as being a plural word. If Varga is to be

> > used as

> > > dvivachana it may become " VargyoH " or " VargeSu " (for

bahuvachan)

> > and not

> > > Varge. Perhaps some Sanskrit scholar on the list would like to

> > comment

> > > on this.

> > >

> > > So, much as I would like it to resolve, the issue remains

> > unresolved.

> > >

> > > Chandrashekhar.

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > Chandrashekhar.

> > >

> > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > >

> > > > I will give you a relevant example to explain how VarGE can

be

> > used in

> > > > context of plural.

> > > >

> > > > Lagna Shad-VargaKE - Is pointing to all vargas - Plural.You

may

> > note

> > > > that the grammatical ending is with ''E'' showing plurals

too can

> > be

> > > > expressed with such an ending.

> > > >

> > > > Now from Vrishamsha''Ka'' and Tulamsha example we can

conclude

> > that

> > > > VargaKA and VarGA can be used for the same purpose in

Ekavachan or

> > > > singular form and VargaKE and VarGE can be used for

Bahuvachan or

> > > > Plural form.

> > > >

> > > > I hope this may help us in resolving our issue.

> > > >

> > > > Respect

> > > > Pradeep

> > > >

> > > >

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

> > ------

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.10.0/886 - Release

Date:

> > 7/4/2007 1:40 PM

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

[Guest guest]

Dear Pradeep,

 

The below remarks are not from my mail at all. I do not know why you

think I would write that. I am sure you know that this is not my style

of writing at all.

 

" >From my experience -Mars + Venus creates certin behaviour.I feel you

too would have experienced this.Why are you going for the varga owned by

just one of them and that too without a planetary link is really

worrying me.Shri Rath has translated so,i agree.But i have an

inner feeling that Shri Rath will definitely correct this for the benfit

of jyotish community. "

 

As to why I said they could not be having their Vargas together in one

rasi or Bhava does not need any deeper explanation. If you are looking

at the 2nd from Karakamsha in the rasi chart, as you think is right, you

could not have both Mesha and Vrishabha or Tula and Vrishchika rasi in

2nd from the Karakamsha, is that not so? Similarly if in navamsha chart

the 2nd from Karakamsha is to be seen, the 2nd could be not both navamshas.

Take care,

Chandrashekhar.

 

vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

>

> Dear Chandrashekhar ji

>

> I though you meant so.Because in subsequent lines we can see Swamsha

> and Karakamsha being used for the same purpose.But if you think

> there are other places where swamsha is used for say Lagnamsha ,then

> i can trust you if you can point me to that. This should not be a

> problem and in no way it will affect us.

>

> Venus and Mars can ofcourse have their Vargas in a single rashi or

> Bhava.Venus can have navamsha there,Mars can have navamsha

> there,Venus can have Trimshamsha there,Mars can have Trimshamsha

> there,they both can have drekkana there etc etc.

>

> Thus sage is talking about Bhrigu and Angara both (as you have

> identified gramattically) having varga there and it is very much

> possible.

>

> If you note the next line -Sage is talking about both Venus and Mars

> joining or aspecting the 2nd from Karakamsha.

>

> >From my experience -Mars + Venus creates certin behaviour.I feel you

> too would have experienced this.Why are you going for the varga

> owned by just one of them and that too without a planetary link is

> really worrying me.Shri Rath has translated so,i agree.But i have an

> inner feeling that Shri Rath will definitely correct this for the

> benfit of jyotish community.

>

> I am surprised as to why you say so.That they cannot have together.

>

> Respect

> Pardeep

>

>

> <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> <chandrashekhar46 wrote:

> >

> > Dear Pradeep,

> >

> > I have never said that I do not think that Swamsha and Karakamsha

> are

> > different where the context demands so. At the same time I do not

> think

> > grammar can be put to rest to in the name of context, without some

> sound

> > reason.

> >

> > Of course if you want contextual translation only, then one can

> > certainly say that the " Meshadi raashige swaamshe " can always be

> > translated as " Falling in Mesha navamsha in Mesha rasi etc. " .

> >

> > By the way " Tatra Bhrigwonkaraka Varge " , that you mention, does

> not

> > mean varga of both Venus and mars, but of varga of Venus OR Mars,

> due to

> > the grammar only. varga of two planets can not fall in one

> > bhava/amsha/rasi whether in rasi or Navamsha or any other chart.

> >

> > Take care,

> > Chandrashekhar.

> >

> >

> > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > >

> > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > >

> > > Grammatically,what you are saying is also true.

> > >

> > > But Jyotish defintions play a preceding role in choosing the

> > > grammatical meaning.

> > >

> > > For example one meaning of labhe ,Swamshe etc is in the 11th in

> > > swamsha etc.

> > > But if we go by that we will definitely translate swamshe in

> meshadi

> > > rashige as ''in Swamsha'',thereby translating it as one full

> > > chart.This as you too agree,then cannot pass the test,of the

> > > subsequent shlokas.I understand gladly that you too agree that

> > > swamsha and karakamsha are the same.

> > >

> > > So the context decides plural/singular and not necessarily

> the ''E''

> > > as you have rightly mentioned.

> > > But in essence what i want to say is ''E'' does not always

> mean ''in

> > > the'' as you have interpreted.Labheshe is an example.Karake is an

> > > example.

> > > Thus it can very well mean Varga of Shukra and Mars-which can

> then be

> > > six vargas or one varga.(Not lordship)

> > >

> > > Tatra Bhrigwonkaraka Varge -

> > >

> > > Tatra -(There) In the second from Karakamsha

> > > Varga or Vargas of Venus and Mars

> > >

> > > Now why should we need two qualifiesrs for destination(1)In the

> 2nd

> > > from karakamsha 2)in the vargas of?)-if we had another planet

> then

> > > your interpretation is right.That planet will answer the

> question -

> > > who is in the vargas of ?

> > >

> > > Similarly - Swamshad dhane Shukrar

> > >

> > > Swamshad dhane is already pointing to destination- why should we

> need

> > > another ''in the'' vargas of.

> > >

> > > On the other hand if we say in the 2nd from karakamsha if varga

> of

> > > mars and venus are present,it fits in grammatically.Moreover as

> i had

> > > mentioned rashi lordship without planetary link(placement/amsha

> etc)

> > > is too general.

> > >

> > > Respect

> > > Pradeep

> > >

> > >

> <%40>

> > > <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > >

> > > > I may be wrong but the " E " by itself does not point to plural.

> It

> > > is the

> > > > word Shadvarga indicating 6 Vargas that is one group (though it

> > > contains

> > > > more than one unit) and so " Varge " , the singular is used with

> that.

> > > The

> > > > " E " means " in " . I would be happy if an example of " Varge " being

> > > plural

> > > > can be given.

> > > >

> > > > I do not at all think that Vargaka or Varga is singular and

> Vargake

> > > or

> > > > Varge is plural, at all. Both the manner of using the word only

> > > > indicates singular. it is no use projecting what is clearly

> Saptami

> > > > vibhakti and singular as being a plural word. If Varga is to be

> > > used as

> > > > dvivachana it may become " VargyoH " or " VargeSu " (for

> bahuvachan)

> > > and not

> > > > Varge. Perhaps some Sanskrit scholar on the list would like to

> > > comment

> > > > on this.

> > > >

> > > > So, much as I would like it to resolve, the issue remains

> > > unresolved.

> > > >

> > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > >

> > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > >

> > > > > I will give you a relevant example to explain how VarGE can

> be

> > > used in

> > > > > context of plural.

> > > > >

> > > > > Lagna Shad-VargaKE - Is pointing to all vargas - Plural.You

> may

> > > note

> > > > > that the grammatical ending is with ''E'' showing plurals

> too can

> > > be

> > > > > expressed with such an ending.

> > > > >

> > > > > Now from Vrishamsha''Ka'' and Tulamsha example we can

> conclude

> > > that

> > > > > VargaKA and VarGA can be used for the same purpose in

> Ekavachan or

> > > > > singular form and VargaKE and VarGE can be used for

> Bahuvachan or

> > > > > Plural form.

> > > > >

> > > > > I hope this may help us in resolving our issue.

> > > > >

> > > > > Respect

> > > > > Pradeep

> > > > >

> > > > >

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

> > > ------

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.10.0/886 - Release

> Date:

> > > 7/4/2007 1:40 PM

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

[Guest guest]

Dear Chandrashekhar ji

 

Those were written by me.

 

I am very dissappointed to see that ,inspite of repeating numerus

times,you are unable to get what i am saying.

 

I am not talking about rashis lorded by shukra or Mars here.I am

talking about the shadvargas vargas of mars and shukra.

 

Pls tell me what is the meaning of shadvargas or simply Varga of

lagna.

 

It is the rashi in which lagna is placed.The navamshaka of

Lagna,Trimshamshaka of Lagna etc.Can we see any lordship as you

say.Lagna does not own any rashi.

 

Similarly when we say vargas of Venus -It means Rashi of

Venus,Hora,navamshaka,drekkana,trimshamshaka etc.

 

Shadvarga is never the rashi owned by a planet.Then Lagna can never

have shadvarga.

 

On the other hand if we say,Chandra in Guru Varga - We are not seeing

the shadvarga of Guru,but that of chandra.Is chandra placed in Guru

Rashi?Is Chandra navamshaka in Guru Rashi.Is Chandra Trimshamshaka in

Guru Rashi etc is what we check.If so chandras vargas fall in guru

rashis or we say chandra is in guruvargas.

 

For the same reason schoplars of yesteryears always say Vargas are

for our natal Lagna and Planets.

 

On the other hand you are taking them as owned by a planet.Every

shadvarga that derive is like that.You may check this with shri

Narasimha,how he is deriving it for his software.

 

For the same reason Bhrigu and Angara can have Varga together in the

Rashi which is 2nd from Karakamsha.Sage clearly talks about the

vargas from both.Moreover the next shloka is talking about Mars and

Venus together or aspecting the 2nd from karakamsha.

 

On the other hand if we go by your explanation,we have to opt for

just one among shukra or Mars which is not proper.Their Joint

influence creates sexual drive.

 

I request you to kindly read this with care.

 

Rspect

Pradeep

 

 

, Chandrashekhar

<chandrashekhar46 wrote:

>

> Dear Pradeep,

>

> The below remarks are not from my mail at all. I do not know why

you

> think I would write that. I am sure you know that this is not my

style

> of writing at all.

>

> " >From my experience -Mars + Venus creates certin behaviour.I feel

you

> too would have experienced this.Why are you going for the varga

owned by

> just one of them and that too without a planetary link is really

> worrying me.Shri Rath has translated so,i agree.But i have an

> inner feeling that Shri Rath will definitely correct this for the

benfit

> of jyotish community. "

>

> As to why I said they could not be having their Vargas together in

one

> rasi or Bhava does not need any deeper explanation. If you are

looking

> at the 2nd from Karakamsha in the rasi chart, as you think is

right, you

> could not have both Mesha and Vrishabha or Tula and Vrishchika rasi

in

> 2nd from the Karakamsha, is that not so? Similarly if in navamsha

chart

> the 2nd from Karakamsha is to be seen, the 2nd could be not both

navamshas.

> Take care,

> Chandrashekhar.

>

> vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> >

> > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> >

> > I though you meant so.Because in subsequent lines we can see

Swamsha

> > and Karakamsha being used for the same purpose.But if you think

> > there are other places where swamsha is used for say

Lagnamsha ,then

> > i can trust you if you can point me to that. This should not be a

> > problem and in no way it will affect us.

> >

> > Venus and Mars can ofcourse have their Vargas in a single rashi or

> > Bhava.Venus can have navamsha there,Mars can have navamsha

> > there,Venus can have Trimshamsha there,Mars can have Trimshamsha

> > there,they both can have drekkana there etc etc.

> >

> > Thus sage is talking about Bhrigu and Angara both (as you have

> > identified gramattically) having varga there and it is very much

> > possible.

> >

> > If you note the next line -Sage is talking about both Venus and

Mars

> > joining or aspecting the 2nd from Karakamsha.

> >

> > >From my experience -Mars + Venus creates certin behaviour.I feel

you

> > too would have experienced this.Why are you going for the varga

> > owned by just one of them and that too without a planetary link is

> > really worrying me.Shri Rath has translated so,i agree.But i have

an

> > inner feeling that Shri Rath will definitely correct this for the

> > benfit of jyotish community.

> >

> > I am surprised as to why you say so.That they cannot have

together.

> >

> > Respect

> > Pardeep

> >

> >

> > <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > >

> > > Dear Pradeep,

> > >

> > > I have never said that I do not think that Swamsha and

Karakamsha

> > are

> > > different where the context demands so. At the same time I do

not

> > think

> > > grammar can be put to rest to in the name of context, without

some

> > sound

> > > reason.

> > >

> > > Of course if you want contextual translation only, then one can

> > > certainly say that the " Meshadi raashige swaamshe " can always be

> > > translated as " Falling in Mesha navamsha in Mesha rasi etc. " .

> > >

> > > By the way " Tatra Bhrigwonkaraka Varge " , that you mention, does

> > not

> > > mean varga of both Venus and mars, but of varga of Venus OR

Mars,

> > due to

> > > the grammar only. varga of two planets can not fall in one

> > > bhava/amsha/rasi whether in rasi or Navamsha or any other chart.

> > >

> > > Take care,

> > > Chandrashekhar.

> > >

> > >

> > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > >

> > > > Grammatically,what you are saying is also true.

> > > >

> > > > But Jyotish defintions play a preceding role in choosing the

> > > > grammatical meaning.

> > > >

> > > > For example one meaning of labhe ,Swamshe etc is in the 11th

in

> > > > swamsha etc.

> > > > But if we go by that we will definitely translate swamshe in

> > meshadi

> > > > rashige as ''in Swamsha'',thereby translating it as one full

> > > > chart.This as you too agree,then cannot pass the test,of the

> > > > subsequent shlokas.I understand gladly that you too agree that

> > > > swamsha and karakamsha are the same.

> > > >

> > > > So the context decides plural/singular and not necessarily

> > the ''E''

> > > > as you have rightly mentioned.

> > > > But in essence what i want to say is ''E'' does not always

> > mean ''in

> > > > the'' as you have interpreted.Labheshe is an example.Karake

is an

> > > > example.

> > > > Thus it can very well mean Varga of Shukra and Mars-which can

> > then be

> > > > six vargas or one varga.(Not lordship)

> > > >

> > > > Tatra Bhrigwonkaraka Varge -

> > > >

> > > > Tatra -(There) In the second from Karakamsha

> > > > Varga or Vargas of Venus and Mars

> > > >

> > > > Now why should we need two qualifiesrs for destination(1)In

the

> > 2nd

> > > > from karakamsha 2)in the vargas of?)-if we had another planet

> > then

> > > > your interpretation is right.That planet will answer the

> > question -

> > > > who is in the vargas of ?

> > > >

> > > > Similarly - Swamshad dhane Shukrar

> > > >

> > > > Swamshad dhane is already pointing to destination- why should

we

> > need

> > > > another ''in the'' vargas of.

> > > >

> > > > On the other hand if we say in the 2nd from karakamsha if

varga

> > of

> > > > mars and venus are present,it fits in grammatically.Moreover

as

> > i had

> > > > mentioned rashi lordship without planetary link

(placement/amsha

> > etc)

> > > > is too general.

> > > >

> > > > Respect

> > > > Pradeep

> > > >

> > > >

> > <%40>

> > > > <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > >

> > > > > I may be wrong but the " E " by itself does not point to

plural.

> > It

> > > > is the

> > > > > word Shadvarga indicating 6 Vargas that is one group

(though it

> > > > contains

> > > > > more than one unit) and so " Varge " , the singular is used

with

> > that.

> > > > The

> > > > > " E " means " in " . I would be happy if an example of " Varge "

being

> > > > plural

> > > > > can be given.

> > > > >

> > > > > I do not at all think that Vargaka or Varga is singular and

> > Vargake

> > > > or

> > > > > Varge is plural, at all. Both the manner of using the word

only

> > > > > indicates singular. it is no use projecting what is clearly

> > Saptami

> > > > > vibhakti and singular as being a plural word. If Varga is

to be

> > > > used as

> > > > > dvivachana it may become " VargyoH " or " VargeSu " (for

> > bahuvachan)

> > > > and not

> > > > > Varge. Perhaps some Sanskrit scholar on the list would like

to

> > > > comment

> > > > > on this.

> > > > >

> > > > > So, much as I would like it to resolve, the issue remains

> > > > unresolved.

> > > > >

> > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > >

> > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > > >

> > > > > > I will give you a relevant example to explain how VarGE

can

> > be

> > > > used in

> > > > > > context of plural.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Lagna Shad-VargaKE - Is pointing to all vargas -

Plural.You

> > may

> > > > note

> > > > > > that the grammatical ending is with ''E'' showing plurals

> > too can

> > > > be

> > > > > > expressed with such an ending.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Now from Vrishamsha''Ka'' and Tulamsha example we can

> > conclude

> > > > that

> > > > > > VargaKA and VarGA can be used for the same purpose in

> > Ekavachan or

> > > > > > singular form and VargaKE and VarGE can be used for

> > Bahuvachan or

> > > > > > Plural form.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > I hope this may help us in resolving our issue.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Respect

> > > > > > Pradeep

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

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

> > > > ------

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.10.0/886 - Release

> > Date:

> > > > 7/4/2007 1:40 PM

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

[Guest guest]

Dear Pradeep,

 

I will tell you why that happens. You begin with quoting Parashara and

then give a sutra from Jaimini as being said by Parashara.

Interpretation of sutras is not the easiest of the things, more so with

Jaimini's Upadesha sutras. That the sutras use KaTaPaYaadi encryption

makes them even more difficult to interpret. I am sure you have noticed

this when Sreenadh interpreted the KaTaPaYaadi Varga in a wrong fashion.

 

Then there is your insistence to let Sanskrit grammar give a go by if

that can make interpretation of a shloka or sutra fit your proposition.

 

Any of the Shodasha Vargas of a rasi can be referred to as Varga, but as

far as I know in astrology, when one talks of Varga, without qualifying

it, or Amshas that generally refers to navamsha or Dwadashaamsha.

 

Another reason that we can not agree, or seem to agree, is that you are

reluctant to call a navamsha by the nomenclature navamsha rasi. This

makes it difficult to convey what I mean to say in English as that is

the language of the net and which both of us know. Now since you do not

want to use the word Mesha navamsha as Mesha is a rashi and by your

logic it can not be a navamsha, it becomes difficult to convey what I

understand by the texts.

 

I will like to draw your attention to the literal meaning of the word

rasi. It means a heap and nothing more. In astrology since it

encompasses many stars that make up a nakshatra the 1/12th division of

the zodiac is called a Rasi. Or at least this is my understanding of the

reason of using the word rasi for the 1/12th division of the zodiac.

 

I do not agree that by Chandra in Guru Varga it is meant that Varga of

Chandra is being seen. To me we are talking about is whether Chandra is

falling in the Varga of Guru in which ever rasi he is occupying. So in

Navamsha we see whether Chandra is occupying Pisces or Sagittarius

navamsha. I also do not agree that there are Vargas of Chandra or of any

planet for that matter. The 16 Vargas that Parashara talks about are

that of a Rasi, beginning from the Rashi itself.

 

If the Vargas are not owned by different planets, pray why does the sage

tell us to see occupation of a friend, own etc. Varga to assess the

strength of a planet in the Varga concerned?

 

I have interacted with many astrologers of yesteryears (with respect to

my age group) and have never found them claiming the Vargas to be of

only lagna and planets.

 

If you insist that sage Parashara gave the SU. 52.- " Tatra bhrigwongaraka

varge paradarikaha " , perhaps you are referring to some edition of BPHS

that I do not have. However I do have that in the umpteen different

texts on Jaimini that I do have in my library. And by the way, some

scholars have interpreted that to mean 9th from Karakamsha and not the 2nd.

 

I do not agree that a graha can simultaneously occupy the Varga of both

Venus and Mars, simultaneously, as is being suggested whether in rasi or

in any of the Vargas. It could only occupy one or the other.

 

I have seen you arguing in favor of looking at the Shadvargas of the

grahas Venus and Mars. I would like you to look at all the six charts

whose Vargas together are referred as Shadvargas and try to find out

whether they do indeed contain the 6 Vargas of Venus and 6 Vargas or

Mars. I am sure that you will find them to contain only 5 Vargas each of

the grahas. Once you confirm this by looking at the 6 Vargas your self,

tell me how one can look at Shadvargas of Venus or Mars as is being

suggested to be the interpretation of the sutra that you are referring to.

 

You may also be interested to know that Parashara talks of AK falling in

the Varga of Chandra, Mars or Venus also having the roving eye on others

wives. So the combination of Venus and Mars being the only one giving

the roving eye for other's wives, that you are advancing as a standalone

principle, may not, necessarily, be the way the sage looked at their

interpretation.

 

Take care,

Chandrashekhar.

 

 

 

 

 

 

vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

>

> Dear Chandrashekhar ji

>

> Those were written by me.

>

> I am very dissappointed to see that ,inspite of repeating numerus

> times,you are unable to get what i am saying.

>

> I am not talking about rashis lorded by shukra or Mars here.I am

> talking about the shadvargas vargas of mars and shukra.

>

> Pls tell me what is the meaning of shadvargas or simply Varga of

> lagna.

>

> It is the rashi in which lagna is placed.The navamshaka of

> Lagna,Trimshamshaka of Lagna etc.Can we see any lordship as you

> say.Lagna does not own any rashi.

>

> Similarly when we say vargas of Venus -It means Rashi of

> Venus,Hora,navamshaka,drekkana,trimshamshaka etc.

>

> Shadvarga is never the rashi owned by a planet.Then Lagna can never

> have shadvarga.

>

> On the other hand if we say,Chandra in Guru Varga - We are not seeing

> the shadvarga of Guru,but that of chandra.Is chandra placed in Guru

> Rashi?Is Chandra navamshaka in Guru Rashi.Is Chandra Trimshamshaka in

> Guru Rashi etc is what we check.If so chandras vargas fall in guru

> rashis or we say chandra is in guruvargas.

>

> For the same reason schoplars of yesteryears always say Vargas are

> for our natal Lagna and Planets.

>

> On the other hand you are taking them as owned by a planet.Every

> shadvarga that derive is like that.You may check this with shri

> Narasimha,how he is deriving it for his software.

>

> For the same reason Bhrigu and Angara can have Varga together in the

> Rashi which is 2nd from Karakamsha.Sage clearly talks about the

> vargas from both.Moreover the next shloka is talking about Mars and

> Venus together or aspecting the 2nd from karakamsha.

>

> On the other hand if we go by your explanation,we have to opt for

> just one among shukra or Mars which is not proper.Their Joint

> influence creates sexual drive.

>

> I request you to kindly read this with care.

>

> Rspect

> Pradeep

>

>

> <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> <chandrashekhar46 wrote:

> >

> > Dear Pradeep,

> >

> > The below remarks are not from my mail at all. I do not know why

> you

> > think I would write that. I am sure you know that this is not my

> style

> > of writing at all.

> >

> > " >From my experience -Mars + Venus creates certin behaviour.I feel

> you

> > too would have experienced this.Why are you going for the varga

> owned by

> > just one of them and that too without a planetary link is really

> > worrying me.Shri Rath has translated so,i agree.But i have an

> > inner feeling that Shri Rath will definitely correct this for the

> benfit

> > of jyotish community. "

> >

> > As to why I said they could not be having their Vargas together in

> one

> > rasi or Bhava does not need any deeper explanation. If you are

> looking

> > at the 2nd from Karakamsha in the rasi chart, as you think is

> right, you

> > could not have both Mesha and Vrishabha or Tula and Vrishchika rasi

> in

> > 2nd from the Karakamsha, is that not so? Similarly if in navamsha

> chart

> > the 2nd from Karakamsha is to be seen, the 2nd could be not both

> navamshas.

> > Take care,

> > Chandrashekhar.

> >

> > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > >

> > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > >

> > > I though you meant so.Because in subsequent lines we can see

> Swamsha

> > > and Karakamsha being used for the same purpose.But if you think

> > > there are other places where swamsha is used for say

> Lagnamsha ,then

> > > i can trust you if you can point me to that. This should not be a

> > > problem and in no way it will affect us.

> > >

> > > Venus and Mars can ofcourse have their Vargas in a single rashi or

> > > Bhava.Venus can have navamsha there,Mars can have navamsha

> > > there,Venus can have Trimshamsha there,Mars can have Trimshamsha

> > > there,they both can have drekkana there etc etc.

> > >

> > > Thus sage is talking about Bhrigu and Angara both (as you have

> > > identified gramattically) having varga there and it is very much

> > > possible.

> > >

> > > If you note the next line -Sage is talking about both Venus and

> Mars

> > > joining or aspecting the 2nd from Karakamsha.

> > >

> > > >From my experience -Mars + Venus creates certin behaviour.I feel

> you

> > > too would have experienced this.Why are you going for the varga

> > > owned by just one of them and that too without a planetary link is

> > > really worrying me.Shri Rath has translated so,i agree.But i have

> an

> > > inner feeling that Shri Rath will definitely correct this for the

> > > benfit of jyotish community.

> > >

> > > I am surprised as to why you say so.That they cannot have

> together.

> > >

> > > Respect

> > > Pardeep

> > >

> > >

> <%40>

> > > <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > >

> > > > I have never said that I do not think that Swamsha and

> Karakamsha

> > > are

> > > > different where the context demands so. At the same time I do

> not

> > > think

> > > > grammar can be put to rest to in the name of context, without

> some

> > > sound

> > > > reason.

> > > >

> > > > Of course if you want contextual translation only, then one can

> > > > certainly say that the " Meshadi raashige swaamshe " can always be

> > > > translated as " Falling in Mesha navamsha in Mesha rasi etc. " .

> > > >

> > > > By the way " Tatra Bhrigwonkaraka Varge " , that you mention, does

> > > not

> > > > mean varga of both Venus and mars, but of varga of Venus OR

> Mars,

> > > due to

> > > > the grammar only. varga of two planets can not fall in one

> > > > bhava/amsha/rasi whether in rasi or Navamsha or any other chart.

> > > >

> > > > Take care,

> > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > >

> > > > > Grammatically,what you are saying is also true.

> > > > >

> > > > > But Jyotish defintions play a preceding role in choosing the

> > > > > grammatical meaning.

> > > > >

> > > > > For example one meaning of labhe ,Swamshe etc is in the 11th

> in

> > > > > swamsha etc.

> > > > > But if we go by that we will definitely translate swamshe in

> > > meshadi

> > > > > rashige as ''in Swamsha'',thereby translating it as one full

> > > > > chart.This as you too agree,then cannot pass the test,of the

> > > > > subsequent shlokas.I understand gladly that you too agree that

> > > > > swamsha and karakamsha are the same.

> > > > >

> > > > > So the context decides plural/singular and not necessarily

> > > the ''E''

> > > > > as you have rightly mentioned.

> > > > > But in essence what i want to say is ''E'' does not always

> > > mean ''in

> > > > > the'' as you have interpreted.Labheshe is an example.Karake

> is an

> > > > > example.

> > > > > Thus it can very well mean Varga of Shukra and Mars-which can

> > > then be

> > > > > six vargas or one varga.(Not lordship)

> > > > >

> > > > > Tatra Bhrigwonkaraka Varge -

> > > > >

> > > > > Tatra -(There) In the second from Karakamsha

> > > > > Varga or Vargas of Venus and Mars

> > > > >

> > > > > Now why should we need two qualifiesrs for destination(1)In

> the

> > > 2nd

> > > > > from karakamsha 2)in the vargas of?)-if we had another planet

> > > then

> > > > > your interpretation is right.That planet will answer the

> > > question -

> > > > > who is in the vargas of ?

> > > > >

> > > > > Similarly - Swamshad dhane Shukrar

> > > > >

> > > > > Swamshad dhane is already pointing to destination- why should

> we

> > > need

> > > > > another ''in the'' vargas of.

> > > > >

> > > > > On the other hand if we say in the 2nd from karakamsha if

> varga

> > > of

> > > > > mars and venus are present,it fits in grammatically.Moreover

> as

> > > i had

> > > > > mentioned rashi lordship without planetary link

> (placement/amsha

> > > etc)

> > > > > is too general.

> > > > >

> > > > > Respect

> > > > > Pradeep

> > > > >

> > > > >

> <%40>

> > > <%40>

> > > > > <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > > >

> > > > > > I may be wrong but the " E " by itself does not point to

> plural.

> > > It

> > > > > is the

> > > > > > word Shadvarga indicating 6 Vargas that is one group

> (though it

> > > > > contains

> > > > > > more than one unit) and so " Varge " , the singular is used

> with

> > > that.

> > > > > The

> > > > > > " E " means " in " . I would be happy if an example of " Varge "

> being

> > > > > plural

> > > > > > can be given.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > I do not at all think that Vargaka or Varga is singular and

> > > Vargake

> > > > > or

> > > > > > Varge is plural, at all. Both the manner of using the word

> only

> > > > > > indicates singular. it is no use projecting what is clearly

> > > Saptami

> > > > > > vibhakti and singular as being a plural word. If Varga is

> to be

> > > > > used as

> > > > > > dvivachana it may become " VargyoH " or " VargeSu " (for

> > > bahuvachan)

> > > > > and not

> > > > > > Varge. Perhaps some Sanskrit scholar on the list would like

> to

> > > > > comment

> > > > > > on this.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > So, much as I would like it to resolve, the issue remains

> > > > > unresolved.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > I will give you a relevant example to explain how VarGE

> can

> > > be

> > > > > used in

> > > > > > > context of plural.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Lagna Shad-VargaKE - Is pointing to all vargas -

> Plural.You

> > > may

> > > > > note

> > > > > > > that the grammatical ending is with ''E'' showing plurals

> > > too can

> > > > > be

> > > > > > > expressed with such an ending.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Now from Vrishamsha''Ka'' and Tulamsha example we can

> > > conclude

> > > > > that

> > > > > > > VargaKA and VarGA can be used for the same purpose in

> > > Ekavachan or

> > > > > > > singular form and VargaKE and VarGE can be used for

> > > Bahuvachan or

> > > > > > > Plural form.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > I hope this may help us in resolving our issue.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Respect

> > > > > > > Pradeep

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

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

> > > > > ------

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.10.0/886 - Release

> > > Date:

> > > > > 7/4/2007 1:40 PM

> > > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

[Guest guest]

Dear Chandrashekhar ji

 

Pls tell me what you mean by shadvargas of lagna.How do you find

them.Do you go by ownership or placement(Rashi/navamsha/dwadshamsha

etc).

 

There are shlokas in Varahamihiras text which says ,Okarkshe

Purushamshakae.

 

Which means in Ojarashi and Oja amsha.

 

As per me sages will not use any words out of context.If he wants to

say amsha he will mention it.He will not use Rashi to mean as amsha.

 

Ojarkshe is Oja Rashi.Similarly Paparkshe is Papa Rashi.

 

If you want to say as per our conveninece we can change the meaning

of riksha/rashi/bhavana/bhavas as navamsha then i cannot say

anything.

 

I can only respect your views.

 

Respect

Pradeep

, Chandrashekhar

<chandrashekhar46 wrote:

>

> Dear Pradeep,

>

> I will tell you why that happens. You begin with quoting Parashara

and

> then give a sutra from Jaimini as being said by Parashara.

> Interpretation of sutras is not the easiest of the things, more so

with

> Jaimini's Upadesha sutras. That the sutras use KaTaPaYaadi

encryption

> makes them even more difficult to interpret. I am sure you have

noticed

> this when Sreenadh interpreted the KaTaPaYaadi Varga in a wrong

fashion.

>

> Then there is your insistence to let Sanskrit grammar give a go by

if

> that can make interpretation of a shloka or sutra fit your

proposition.

>

> Any of the Shodasha Vargas of a rasi can be referred to as Varga,

but as

> far as I know in astrology, when one talks of Varga, without

qualifying

> it, or Amshas that generally refers to navamsha or Dwadashaamsha.

>

> Another reason that we can not agree, or seem to agree, is that

you are

> reluctant to call a navamsha by the nomenclature navamsha rasi.

This

> makes it difficult to convey what I mean to say in English as that

is

> the language of the net and which both of us know. Now since you

do not

> want to use the word Mesha navamsha as Mesha is a rashi and by

your

> logic it can not be a navamsha, it becomes difficult to convey

what I

> understand by the texts.

>

> I will like to draw your attention to the literal meaning of the

word

> rasi. It means a heap and nothing more. In astrology since it

> encompasses many stars that make up a nakshatra the 1/12th

division of

> the zodiac is called a Rasi. Or at least this is my understanding

of the

> reason of using the word rasi for the 1/12th division of the

zodiac.

>

> I do not agree that by Chandra in Guru Varga it is meant that

Varga of

> Chandra is being seen. To me we are talking about is whether

Chandra is

> falling in the Varga of Guru in which ever rasi he is occupying.

So in

> Navamsha we see whether Chandra is occupying Pisces or Sagittarius

> navamsha. I also do not agree that there are Vargas of Chandra or

of any

> planet for that matter. The 16 Vargas that Parashara talks about

are

> that of a Rasi, beginning from the Rashi itself.

>

> If the Vargas are not owned by different planets, pray why does

the sage

> tell us to see occupation of a friend, own etc. Varga to assess

the

> strength of a planet in the Varga concerned?

>

> I have interacted with many astrologers of yesteryears (with

respect to

> my age group) and have never found them claiming the Vargas to be

of

> only lagna and planets.

>

> If you insist that sage Parashara gave the SU. 52.- " Tatra

bhrigwongaraka

> varge paradarikaha " , perhaps you are referring to some edition of

BPHS

> that I do not have. However I do have that in the umpteen

different

> texts on Jaimini that I do have in my library. And by the way,

some

> scholars have interpreted that to mean 9th from Karakamsha and not

the 2nd.

>

> I do not agree that a graha can simultaneously occupy the Varga of

both

> Venus and Mars, simultaneously, as is being suggested whether in

rasi or

> in any of the Vargas. It could only occupy one or the other.

>

> I have seen you arguing in favor of looking at the Shadvargas of

the

> grahas Venus and Mars. I would like you to look at all the six

charts

> whose Vargas together are referred as Shadvargas and try to find

out

> whether they do indeed contain the 6 Vargas of Venus and 6 Vargas

or

> Mars. I am sure that you will find them to contain only 5 Vargas

each of

> the grahas. Once you confirm this by looking at the 6 Vargas your

self,

> tell me how one can look at Shadvargas of Venus or Mars as is

being

> suggested to be the interpretation of the sutra that you are

referring to.

>

> You may also be interested to know that Parashara talks of AK

falling in

> the Varga of Chandra, Mars or Venus also having the roving eye on

others

> wives. So the combination of Venus and Mars being the only one

giving

> the roving eye for other's wives, that you are advancing as a

standalone

> principle, may not, necessarily, be the way the sage looked at

their

> interpretation.

>

> Take care,

> Chandrashekhar.

vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> >

> > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> >

> > Those were written by me.

> >

> > I am very dissappointed to see that ,inspite of repeating numerus

> > times,you are unable to get what i am saying.

> >

> > I am not talking about rashis lorded by shukra or Mars here.I am

> > talking about the shadvargas vargas of mars and shukra.

> >

> > Pls tell me what is the meaning of shadvargas or simply Varga of

> > lagna.

> >

> > It is the rashi in which lagna is placed.The navamshaka of

> > Lagna,Trimshamshaka of Lagna etc.Can we see any lordship as you

> > say.Lagna does not own any rashi.

> >

> > Similarly when we say vargas of Venus -It means Rashi of

> > Venus,Hora,navamshaka,drekkana,trimshamshaka etc.

> >

> > Shadvarga is never the rashi owned by a planet.Then Lagna can

never

> > have shadvarga.

> >

> > On the other hand if we say,Chandra in Guru Varga - We are not

seeing

> > the shadvarga of Guru,but that of chandra.Is chandra placed in

Guru

> > Rashi?Is Chandra navamshaka in Guru Rashi.Is Chandra

Trimshamshaka in

> > Guru Rashi etc is what we check.If so chandras vargas fall in

guru

> > rashis or we say chandra is in guruvargas.

> >

> > For the same reason schoplars of yesteryears always say Vargas

are

> > for our natal Lagna and Planets.

> >

> > On the other hand you are taking them as owned by a planet.Every

> > shadvarga that derive is like that.You may check this with shri

> > Narasimha,how he is deriving it for his software.

> >

> > For the same reason Bhrigu and Angara can have Varga together in

the

> > Rashi which is 2nd from Karakamsha.Sage clearly talks about the

> > vargas from both.Moreover the next shloka is talking about Mars

and

> > Venus together or aspecting the 2nd from karakamsha.

> >

> > On the other hand if we go by your explanation,we have to opt for

> > just one among shukra or Mars which is not proper.Their Joint

> > influence creates sexual drive.

> >

> > I request you to kindly read this with care.

> >

> > Rspect

> > Pradeep

> >

> >

> > <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > >

> > > Dear Pradeep,

> > >

> > > The below remarks are not from my mail at all. I do not know

why

> > you

> > > think I would write that. I am sure you know that this is not

my

> > style

> > > of writing at all.

> > >

> > > " >From my experience -Mars + Venus creates certin behaviour.I

feel

> > you

> > > too would have experienced this.Why are you going for the varga

> > owned by

> > > just one of them and that too without a planetary link is

really

> > > worrying me.Shri Rath has translated so,i agree.But i have an

> > > inner feeling that Shri Rath will definitely correct this for

the

> > benfit

> > > of jyotish community. "

> > >

> > > As to why I said they could not be having their Vargas

together in

> > one

> > > rasi or Bhava does not need any deeper explanation. If you are

> > looking

> > > at the 2nd from Karakamsha in the rasi chart, as you think is

> > right, you

> > > could not have both Mesha and Vrishabha or Tula and Vrishchika

rasi

> > in

> > > 2nd from the Karakamsha, is that not so? Similarly if in

navamsha

> > chart

> > > the 2nd from Karakamsha is to be seen, the 2nd could be not

both

> > navamshas.

> > > Take care,

> > > Chandrashekhar.

> > >

> > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > >

> > > > I though you meant so.Because in subsequent lines we can see

> > Swamsha

> > > > and Karakamsha being used for the same purpose.But if you

think

> > > > there are other places where swamsha is used for say

> > Lagnamsha ,then

> > > > i can trust you if you can point me to that. This should not

be a

> > > > problem and in no way it will affect us.

> > > >

> > > > Venus and Mars can ofcourse have their Vargas in a single

rashi or

> > > > Bhava.Venus can have navamsha there,Mars can have navamsha

> > > > there,Venus can have Trimshamsha there,Mars can have

Trimshamsha

> > > > there,they both can have drekkana there etc etc.

> > > >

> > > > Thus sage is talking about Bhrigu and Angara both (as you

have

> > > > identified gramattically) having varga there and it is very

much

> > > > possible.

> > > >

> > > > If you note the next line -Sage is talking about both Venus

and

> > Mars

> > > > joining or aspecting the 2nd from Karakamsha.

> > > >

> > > > >From my experience -Mars + Venus creates certin behaviour.I

feel

> > you

> > > > too would have experienced this.Why are you going for the

varga

> > > > owned by just one of them and that too without a planetary

link is

> > > > really worrying me.Shri Rath has translated so,i agree.But i

have

> > an

> > > > inner feeling that Shri Rath will definitely correct this

for the

> > > > benfit of jyotish community.

> > > >

> > > > I am surprised as to why you say so.That they cannot have

> > together.

> > > >

> > > > Respect

> > > > Pardeep

> > > >

> > > >

> > <%40>

> > > > <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > >

> > > > > I have never said that I do not think that Swamsha and

> > Karakamsha

> > > > are

> > > > > different where the context demands so. At the same time I

do

> > not

> > > > think

> > > > > grammar can be put to rest to in the name of context,

without

> > some

> > > > sound

> > > > > reason.

> > > > >

> > > > > Of course if you want contextual translation only, then

one can

> > > > > certainly say that the " Meshadi raashige swaamshe " can

always be

> > > > > translated as " Falling in Mesha navamsha in Mesha rasi

etc. " .

> > > > >

> > > > > By the way " Tatra Bhrigwonkaraka Varge " , that you

mention, does

> > > > not

> > > > > mean varga of both Venus and mars, but of varga of Venus OR

> > Mars,

> > > > due to

> > > > > the grammar only. varga of two planets can not fall in one

> > > > > bhava/amsha/rasi whether in rasi or Navamsha or any other

chart.

> > > > >

> > > > > Take care,

> > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Grammatically,what you are saying is also true.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > But Jyotish defintions play a preceding role in choosing

the

> > > > > > grammatical meaning.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > For example one meaning of labhe ,Swamshe etc is in the

11th

> > in

> > > > > > swamsha etc.

> > > > > > But if we go by that we will definitely translate

swamshe in

> > > > meshadi

> > > > > > rashige as ''in Swamsha'',thereby translating it as one

full

> > > > > > chart.This as you too agree,then cannot pass the test,of

the

> > > > > > subsequent shlokas.I understand gladly that you too

agree that

> > > > > > swamsha and karakamsha are the same.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > So the context decides plural/singular and not

necessarily

> > > > the ''E''

> > > > > > as you have rightly mentioned.

> > > > > > But in essence what i want to say is ''E'' does not

always

> > > > mean ''in

> > > > > > the'' as you have interpreted.Labheshe is an

example.Karake

> > is an

> > > > > > example.

> > > > > > Thus it can very well mean Varga of Shukra and Mars-

which can

> > > > then be

> > > > > > six vargas or one varga.(Not lordship)

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Tatra Bhrigwonkaraka Varge -

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Tatra -(There) In the second from Karakamsha

> > > > > > Varga or Vargas of Venus and Mars

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Now why should we need two qualifiesrs for destination(1)

In

> > the

> > > > 2nd

> > > > > > from karakamsha 2)in the vargas of?)-if we had another

planet

> > > > then

> > > > > > your interpretation is right.That planet will answer the

> > > > question -

> > > > > > who is in the vargas of ?

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Similarly - Swamshad dhane Shukrar

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Swamshad dhane is already pointing to destination- why

should

> > we

> > > > need

> > > > > > another ''in the'' vargas of.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > On the other hand if we say in the 2nd from karakamsha if

> > varga

> > > > of

> > > > > > mars and venus are present,it fits in

grammatically.Moreover

> > as

> > > > i had

> > > > > > mentioned rashi lordship without planetary link

> > (placement/amsha

> > > > etc)

> > > > > > is too general.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Respect

> > > > > > Pradeep

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > <%40>

> > > > <%40>

> > > > > > <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> > > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > I may be wrong but the " E " by itself does not point to

> > plural.

> > > > It

> > > > > > is the

> > > > > > > word Shadvarga indicating 6 Vargas that is one group

> > (though it

> > > > > > contains

> > > > > > > more than one unit) and so " Varge " , the singular is

used

> > with

> > > > that.

> > > > > > The

> > > > > > > " E " means " in " . I would be happy if an example

of " Varge "

> > being

> > > > > > plural

> > > > > > > can be given.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > I do not at all think that Vargaka or Varga is

singular and

> > > > Vargake

> > > > > > or

> > > > > > > Varge is plural, at all. Both the manner of using the

word

> > only

> > > > > > > indicates singular. it is no use projecting what is

clearly

> > > > Saptami

> > > > > > > vibhakti and singular as being a plural word. If Varga

is

> > to be

> > > > > > used as

> > > > > > > dvivachana it may become " VargyoH " or " VargeSu " (for

> > > > bahuvachan)

> > > > > > and not

> > > > > > > Varge. Perhaps some Sanskrit scholar on the list would

like

> > to

> > > > > > comment

> > > > > > > on this.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > So, much as I would like it to resolve, the issue

remains

> > > > > > unresolved.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > I will give you a relevant example to explain how

VarGE

> > can

> > > > be

> > > > > > used in

> > > > > > > > context of plural.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Lagna Shad-VargaKE - Is pointing to all vargas -

> > Plural.You

> > > > may

> > > > > > note

> > > > > > > > that the grammatical ending is with ''E'' showing

plurals

> > > > too can

> > > > > > be

> > > > > > > > expressed with such an ending.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Now from Vrishamsha''Ka'' and Tulamsha example we can

> > > > conclude

> > > > > > that

> > > > > > > > VargaKA and VarGA can be used for the same purpose in

> > > > Ekavachan or

> > > > > > > > singular form and VargaKE and VarGE can be used for

> > > > Bahuvachan or

> > > > > > > > Plural form.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > I hope this may help us in resolving our issue.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Respect

> > > > > > > > Pradeep

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

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

-----

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

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.10.0/886 -

Release

> > > > Date:

> > > > > > 7/4/2007 1:40 PM

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

[Guest guest]

Dear Pradeep,

 

I have not understood your question or the intent behind that. The

Vargas are divisions, within a rasi, ruled by different grahas. So if

one wants t look at Vargas falling in lagna the shad Vargas will mean

the rasi equivalent occurring at lagna position in the 6 divisional

charts of Rashi, Hora, Dreshkana, Navamsha, Dwaadashamsha and

Trimshamsha. Or at least this is what I have learnt.

 

Sages did not use words in vain or context. I agree. But that does not

mean they used the words to mean only one thing always.

 

I never said that the meaning can be changed to suit our convenience and

I would request you not to attribute such sentiments to me.

 

However I do say that word are used in different contexts to mean

different things, especially in Sanskrit texts of Jyotish. I have, just

a few minutes back use of " Sva " with different meaning at different

places by Varaha Mihira to you. I hope you do not also attribute the

words that you attributed to me to the venerated Varaha Mihira.

 

Take care,

Chandrashekhar,.

 

vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

>

> Dear Chandrashekhar ji

>

> Pls tell me what you mean by shadvargas of lagna.How do you find

> them.Do you go by ownership or placement(Rashi/navamsha/dwadshamsha

> etc).

>

> There are shlokas in Varahamihiras text which says ,Okarkshe

> Purushamshakae.

>

> Which means in Ojarashi and Oja amsha.

>

> As per me sages will not use any words out of context.If he wants to

> say amsha he will mention it.He will not use Rashi to mean as amsha.

>

> Ojarkshe is Oja Rashi.Similarly Paparkshe is Papa Rashi.

>

> If you want to say as per our conveninece we can change the meaning

> of riksha/rashi/bhavana/bhavas as navamsha then i cannot say

> anything.

>

> I can only respect your views.

>

> Respect

> Pradeep

>

> <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> <chandrashekhar46 wrote:

> >

> > Dear Pradeep,

> >

> > I will tell you why that happens. You begin with quoting Parashara

> and

> > then give a sutra from Jaimini as being said by Parashara.

> > Interpretation of sutras is not the easiest of the things, more so

> with

> > Jaimini's Upadesha sutras. That the sutras use KaTaPaYaadi

> encryption

> > makes them even more difficult to interpret. I am sure you have

> noticed

> > this when Sreenadh interpreted the KaTaPaYaadi Varga in a wrong

> fashion.

> >

> > Then there is your insistence to let Sanskrit grammar give a go by

> if

> > that can make interpretation of a shloka or sutra fit your

> proposition.

> >

> > Any of the Shodasha Vargas of a rasi can be referred to as Varga,

> but as

> > far as I know in astrology, when one talks of Varga, without

> qualifying

> > it, or Amshas that generally refers to navamsha or Dwadashaamsha.

> >

> > Another reason that we can not agree, or seem to agree, is that

> you are

> > reluctant to call a navamsha by the nomenclature navamsha rasi.

> This

> > makes it difficult to convey what I mean to say in English as that

> is

> > the language of the net and which both of us know. Now since you

> do not

> > want to use the word Mesha navamsha as Mesha is a rashi and by

> your

> > logic it can not be a navamsha, it becomes difficult to convey

> what I

> > understand by the texts.

> >

> > I will like to draw your attention to the literal meaning of the

> word

> > rasi. It means a heap and nothing more. In astrology since it

> > encompasses many stars that make up a nakshatra the 1/12th

> division of

> > the zodiac is called a Rasi. Or at least this is my understanding

> of the

> > reason of using the word rasi for the 1/12th division of the

> zodiac.

> >

> > I do not agree that by Chandra in Guru Varga it is meant that

> Varga of

> > Chandra is being seen. To me we are talking about is whether

> Chandra is

> > falling in the Varga of Guru in which ever rasi he is occupying.

> So in

> > Navamsha we see whether Chandra is occupying Pisces or Sagittarius

> > navamsha. I also do not agree that there are Vargas of Chandra or

> of any

> > planet for that matter. The 16 Vargas that Parashara talks about

> are

> > that of a Rasi, beginning from the Rashi itself.

> >

> > If the Vargas are not owned by different planets, pray why does

> the sage

> > tell us to see occupation of a friend, own etc. Varga to assess

> the

> > strength of a planet in the Varga concerned?

> >

> > I have interacted with many astrologers of yesteryears (with

> respect to

> > my age group) and have never found them claiming the Vargas to be

> of

> > only lagna and planets.

> >

> > If you insist that sage Parashara gave the SU. 52.- " Tatra

> bhrigwongaraka

> > varge paradarikaha " , perhaps you are referring to some edition of

> BPHS

> > that I do not have. However I do have that in the umpteen

> different

> > texts on Jaimini that I do have in my library. And by the way,

> some

> > scholars have interpreted that to mean 9th from Karakamsha and not

> the 2nd.

> >

> > I do not agree that a graha can simultaneously occupy the Varga of

> both

> > Venus and Mars, simultaneously, as is being suggested whether in

> rasi or

> > in any of the Vargas. It could only occupy one or the other.

> >

> > I have seen you arguing in favor of looking at the Shadvargas of

> the

> > grahas Venus and Mars. I would like you to look at all the six

> charts

> > whose Vargas together are referred as Shadvargas and try to find

> out

> > whether they do indeed contain the 6 Vargas of Venus and 6 Vargas

> or

> > Mars. I am sure that you will find them to contain only 5 Vargas

> each of

> > the grahas. Once you confirm this by looking at the 6 Vargas your

> self,

> > tell me how one can look at Shadvargas of Venus or Mars as is

> being

> > suggested to be the interpretation of the sutra that you are

> referring to.

> >

> > You may also be interested to know that Parashara talks of AK

> falling in

> > the Varga of Chandra, Mars or Venus also having the roving eye on

> others

> > wives. So the combination of Venus and Mars being the only one

> giving

> > the roving eye for other's wives, that you are advancing as a

> standalone

> > principle, may not, necessarily, be the way the sage looked at

> their

> > interpretation.

> >

> > Take care,

> > Chandrashekhar.

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > >

> > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > >

> > > Those were written by me.

> > >

> > > I am very dissappointed to see that ,inspite of repeating numerus

> > > times,you are unable to get what i am saying.

> > >

> > > I am not talking about rashis lorded by shukra or Mars here.I am

> > > talking about the shadvargas vargas of mars and shukra.

> > >

> > > Pls tell me what is the meaning of shadvargas or simply Varga of

> > > lagna.

> > >

> > > It is the rashi in which lagna is placed.The navamshaka of

> > > Lagna,Trimshamshaka of Lagna etc.Can we see any lordship as you

> > > say.Lagna does not own any rashi.

> > >

> > > Similarly when we say vargas of Venus -It means Rashi of

> > > Venus,Hora,navamshaka,drekkana,trimshamshaka etc.

> > >

> > > Shadvarga is never the rashi owned by a planet.Then Lagna can

> never

> > > have shadvarga.

> > >

> > > On the other hand if we say,Chandra in Guru Varga - We are not

> seeing

> > > the shadvarga of Guru,but that of chandra.Is chandra placed in

> Guru

> > > Rashi?Is Chandra navamshaka in Guru Rashi.Is Chandra

> Trimshamshaka in

> > > Guru Rashi etc is what we check.If so chandras vargas fall in

> guru

> > > rashis or we say chandra is in guruvargas.

> > >

> > > For the same reason schoplars of yesteryears always say Vargas

> are

> > > for our natal Lagna and Planets.

> > >

> > > On the other hand you are taking them as owned by a planet.Every

> > > shadvarga that derive is like that.You may check this with shri

> > > Narasimha,how he is deriving it for his software.

> > >

> > > For the same reason Bhrigu and Angara can have Varga together in

> the

> > > Rashi which is 2nd from Karakamsha.Sage clearly talks about the

> > > vargas from both.Moreover the next shloka is talking about Mars

> and

> > > Venus together or aspecting the 2nd from karakamsha.

> > >

> > > On the other hand if we go by your explanation,we have to opt for

> > > just one among shukra or Mars which is not proper.Their Joint

> > > influence creates sexual drive.

> > >

> > > I request you to kindly read this with care.

> > >

> > > Rspect

> > > Pradeep

> > >

> > >

> <%40>

> > > <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > >

> > > > The below remarks are not from my mail at all. I do not know

> why

> > > you

> > > > think I would write that. I am sure you know that this is not

> my

> > > style

> > > > of writing at all.

> > > >

> > > > " >From my experience -Mars + Venus creates certin behaviour.I

> feel

> > > you

> > > > too would have experienced this.Why are you going for the varga

> > > owned by

> > > > just one of them and that too without a planetary link is

> really

> > > > worrying me.Shri Rath has translated so,i agree.But i have an

> > > > inner feeling that Shri Rath will definitely correct this for

> the

> > > benfit

> > > > of jyotish community. "

> > > >

> > > > As to why I said they could not be having their Vargas

> together in

> > > one

> > > > rasi or Bhava does not need any deeper explanation. If you are

> > > looking

> > > > at the 2nd from Karakamsha in the rasi chart, as you think is

> > > right, you

> > > > could not have both Mesha and Vrishabha or Tula and Vrishchika

> rasi

> > > in

> > > > 2nd from the Karakamsha, is that not so? Similarly if in

> navamsha

> > > chart

> > > > the 2nd from Karakamsha is to be seen, the 2nd could be not

> both

> > > navamshas.

> > > > Take care,

> > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > >

> > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > >

> > > > > I though you meant so.Because in subsequent lines we can see

> > > Swamsha

> > > > > and Karakamsha being used for the same purpose.But if you

> think

> > > > > there are other places where swamsha is used for say

> > > Lagnamsha ,then

> > > > > i can trust you if you can point me to that. This should not

> be a

> > > > > problem and in no way it will affect us.

> > > > >

> > > > > Venus and Mars can ofcourse have their Vargas in a single

> rashi or

> > > > > Bhava.Venus can have navamsha there,Mars can have navamsha

> > > > > there,Venus can have Trimshamsha there,Mars can have

> Trimshamsha

> > > > > there,they both can have drekkana there etc etc.

> > > > >

> > > > > Thus sage is talking about Bhrigu and Angara both (as you

> have

> > > > > identified gramattically) having varga there and it is very

> much

> > > > > possible.

> > > > >

> > > > > If you note the next line -Sage is talking about both Venus

> and

> > > Mars

> > > > > joining or aspecting the 2nd from Karakamsha.

> > > > >

> > > > > >From my experience -Mars + Venus creates certin behaviour.I

> feel

> > > you

> > > > > too would have experienced this.Why are you going for the

> varga

> > > > > owned by just one of them and that too without a planetary

> link is

> > > > > really worrying me.Shri Rath has translated so,i agree.But i

> have

> > > an

> > > > > inner feeling that Shri Rath will definitely correct this

> for the

> > > > > benfit of jyotish community.

> > > > >

> > > > > I am surprised as to why you say so.That they cannot have

> > > together.

> > > > >

> > > > > Respect

> > > > > Pardeep

> > > > >

> > > > >

> <%40>

> > > <%40>

> > > > > <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > > >

> > > > > > I have never said that I do not think that Swamsha and

> > > Karakamsha

> > > > > are

> > > > > > different where the context demands so. At the same time I

> do

> > > not

> > > > > think

> > > > > > grammar can be put to rest to in the name of context,

> without

> > > some

> > > > > sound

> > > > > > reason.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Of course if you want contextual translation only, then

> one can

> > > > > > certainly say that the " Meshadi raashige swaamshe " can

> always be

> > > > > > translated as " Falling in Mesha navamsha in Mesha rasi

> etc. " .

> > > > > >

> > > > > > By the way " Tatra Bhrigwonkaraka Varge " , that you

> mention, does

> > > > > not

> > > > > > mean varga of both Venus and mars, but of varga of Venus OR

> > > Mars,

> > > > > due to

> > > > > > the grammar only. varga of two planets can not fall in one

> > > > > > bhava/amsha/rasi whether in rasi or Navamsha or any other

> chart.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Take care,

> > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Grammatically,what you are saying is also true.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > But Jyotish defintions play a preceding role in choosing

> the

> > > > > > > grammatical meaning.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > For example one meaning of labhe ,Swamshe etc is in the

> 11th

> > > in

> > > > > > > swamsha etc.

> > > > > > > But if we go by that we will definitely translate

> swamshe in

> > > > > meshadi

> > > > > > > rashige as ''in Swamsha'',thereby translating it as one

> full

> > > > > > > chart.This as you too agree,then cannot pass the test,of

> the

> > > > > > > subsequent shlokas.I understand gladly that you too

> agree that

> > > > > > > swamsha and karakamsha are the same.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > So the context decides plural/singular and not

> necessarily

> > > > > the ''E''

> > > > > > > as you have rightly mentioned.

> > > > > > > But in essence what i want to say is ''E'' does not

> always

> > > > > mean ''in

> > > > > > > the'' as you have interpreted.Labheshe is an

> example.Karake

> > > is an

> > > > > > > example.

> > > > > > > Thus it can very well mean Varga of Shukra and Mars-

> which can

> > > > > then be

> > > > > > > six vargas or one varga.(Not lordship)

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Tatra Bhrigwonkaraka Varge -

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Tatra -(There) In the second from Karakamsha

> > > > > > > Varga or Vargas of Venus and Mars

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Now why should we need two qualifiesrs for destination(1)

> In

> > > the

> > > > > 2nd

> > > > > > > from karakamsha 2)in the vargas of?)-if we had another

> planet

> > > > > then

> > > > > > > your interpretation is right.That planet will answer the

> > > > > question -

> > > > > > > who is in the vargas of ?

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Similarly - Swamshad dhane Shukrar

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Swamshad dhane is already pointing to destination- why

> should

> > > we

> > > > > need

> > > > > > > another ''in the'' vargas of.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > On the other hand if we say in the 2nd from karakamsha if

> > > varga

> > > > > of

> > > > > > > mars and venus are present,it fits in

> grammatically.Moreover

> > > as

> > > > > i had

> > > > > > > mentioned rashi lordship without planetary link

> > > (placement/amsha

> > > > > etc)

> > > > > > > is too general.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Respect

> > > > > > > Pradeep

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> <%40>

> > > <%40>

> > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> > > > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > I may be wrong but the " E " by itself does not point to

> > > plural.

> > > > > It

> > > > > > > is the

> > > > > > > > word Shadvarga indicating 6 Vargas that is one group

> > > (though it

> > > > > > > contains

> > > > > > > > more than one unit) and so " Varge " , the singular is

> used

> > > with

> > > > > that.

> > > > > > > The

> > > > > > > > " E " means " in " . I would be happy if an example

> of " Varge "

> > > being

> > > > > > > plural

> > > > > > > > can be given.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > I do not at all think that Vargaka or Varga is

> singular and

> > > > > Vargake

> > > > > > > or

> > > > > > > > Varge is plural, at all. Both the manner of using the

> word

> > > only

> > > > > > > > indicates singular. it is no use projecting what is

> clearly

> > > > > Saptami

> > > > > > > > vibhakti and singular as being a plural word. If Varga

> is

> > > to be

> > > > > > > used as

> > > > > > > > dvivachana it may become " VargyoH " or " VargeSu " (for

> > > > > bahuvachan)

> > > > > > > and not

> > > > > > > > Varge. Perhaps some Sanskrit scholar on the list would

> like

> > > to

> > > > > > > comment

> > > > > > > > on this.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > So, much as I would like it to resolve, the issue

> remains

> > > > > > > unresolved.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > I will give you a relevant example to explain how

> VarGE

> > > can

> > > > > be

> > > > > > > used in

> > > > > > > > > context of plural.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Lagna Shad-VargaKE - Is pointing to all vargas -

> > > Plural.You

> > > > > may

> > > > > > > note

> > > > > > > > > that the grammatical ending is with ''E'' showing

> plurals

> > > > > too can

> > > > > > > be

> > > > > > > > > expressed with such an ending.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Now from Vrishamsha''Ka'' and Tulamsha example we can

> > > > > conclude

> > > > > > > that

> > > > > > > > > VargaKA and VarGA can be used for the same purpose in

> > > > > Ekavachan or

> > > > > > > > > singular form and VargaKE and VarGE can be used for

> > > > > Bahuvachan or

> > > > > > > > > Plural form.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > I hope this may help us in resolving our issue.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Respect

> > > > > > > > > Pradeep

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

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

> -----

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

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.10.0/886 -

> Release

> > > > > Date:

> > > > > > > 7/4/2007 1:40 PM

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

[Guest guest]

Dear Chandrashekhar ji

 

There was a purpose.I just wanted to explain it to the members if

some of them are not sure on what shadvarga of lagna is and how it

is calculated.

 

As you have said Vargas are divisions of a rashi.But shadvargas of

Lagna is not the Vargas falling in Lagna.Here lagna is not a

rashi,but a bindu.Vargas are found from a degree.The degree of a

planet or degree of lagna.

 

As you may know we do notneed six charts to dtermine shadvargas of

lagna.All we need is the degree of lagna and the rashi rising.

 

Let us take an example.Lagna is at 11 degrees in dhanu.

 

Let us find the shadvargas of Lagna with th help of rising rashi and

degree.

 

1st Varga - The Rashi in which Lagna bindu is falling - Dhanu

2nd Varga - The Hora in which Lagna bindu is falling - As 11 degrees

falls in the 1st half of dhanu - Surya Hora

3rd Varga - The drekkana in which Lagna bindu is falling - As 11

degrees falls in the 2nd 1/3rd of dhanu - Drekkana is Mesha.

4th Varga - As 11 degrees falls in the 3rd saptamsha ,Lagna saptamsha

is Kumbha.

 

Similraly - Lagna navamsha is Karka,Lagna Trimshamsha is dhanu.

 

Thus the purpose of whole exercise was to say that when we say

shadvargas of Lagna or Mars,it does not mean the rashis owned by

Lagna or Mars.But the Rashis on towhich they are placed,having

hora,drekkana etc etc.

 

Vargas of Mars in the 2nd Rashi from karakamsha too is no differet.

 

There are many meanings,that is why Rashi is called as

Kshethra /Riksha /havana etc.But i don't think sage will use the

saword to represent something belonging to same class.

 

For example sage will not use ''sva'' to mean 2nd as well as 3rd.Then

we cannot interpret.

 

Similarly Rashi and navamsha will not be represented using the same

word.Rashi/Kshethra/Riksha/Bhvana/Lagna etc are synonyms an ifthey

are used for navamsha then what is the whole purpose behind defintion.

 

On the other hand sva was used for iems from different classes.

 

This wasin mind while making such a statement.I will try my best to

polish my style of writing.I accept my limitations in writing.

 

Respect

Pradeep

 

 

 

 

, Chandrashekhar

<chandrashekhar46 wrote:

>

> Dear Pradeep,

>

> I have not understood your question or the intent behind that. The

> Vargas are divisions, within a rasi, ruled by different grahas. So

if

> one wants t look at Vargas falling in lagna the shad Vargas will

mean

> the rasi equivalent occurring at lagna position in the 6 divisional

> charts of Rashi, Hora, Dreshkana, Navamsha, Dwaadashamsha and

> Trimshamsha. Or at least this is what I have learnt.

>

> Sages did not use words in vain or context. I agree. But that does

not

> mean they used the words to mean only one thing always.

>

> I never said that the meaning can be changed to suit our

convenience and

> I would request you not to attribute such sentiments to me.

>

> However I do say that word are used in different contexts to mean

> different things, especially in Sanskrit texts of Jyotish. I have,

just

> a few minutes back use of " Sva " with different meaning at different

> places by Varaha Mihira to you. I hope you do not also attribute

the

> words that you attributed to me to the venerated Varaha Mihira.

>

> Take care,

> Chandrashekhar,.

>

> vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> >

> > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> >

> > Pls tell me what you mean by shadvargas of lagna.How do you find

> > them.Do you go by ownership or placement

(Rashi/navamsha/dwadshamsha

> > etc).

> >

> > There are shlokas in Varahamihiras text which says ,Okarkshe

> > Purushamshakae.

> >

> > Which means in Ojarashi and Oja amsha.

> >

> > As per me sages will not use any words out of context.If he wants

to

> > say amsha he will mention it.He will not use Rashi to mean as

amsha.

> >

> > Ojarkshe is Oja Rashi.Similarly Paparkshe is Papa Rashi.

> >

> > If you want to say as per our conveninece we can change the

meaning

> > of riksha/rashi/bhavana/bhavas as navamsha then i cannot say

> > anything.

> >

> > I can only respect your views.

> >

> > Respect

> > Pradeep

> >

> > <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > >

> > > Dear Pradeep,

> > >

> > > I will tell you why that happens. You begin with quoting

Parashara

> > and

> > > then give a sutra from Jaimini as being said by Parashara.

> > > Interpretation of sutras is not the easiest of the things, more

so

> > with

> > > Jaimini's Upadesha sutras. That the sutras use KaTaPaYaadi

> > encryption

> > > makes them even more difficult to interpret. I am sure you have

> > noticed

> > > this when Sreenadh interpreted the KaTaPaYaadi Varga in a wrong

> > fashion.

> > >

> > > Then there is your insistence to let Sanskrit grammar give a go

by

> > if

> > > that can make interpretation of a shloka or sutra fit your

> > proposition.

> > >

> > > Any of the Shodasha Vargas of a rasi can be referred to as

Varga,

> > but as

> > > far as I know in astrology, when one talks of Varga, without

> > qualifying

> > > it, or Amshas that generally refers to navamsha or

Dwadashaamsha.

> > >

> > > Another reason that we can not agree, or seem to agree, is that

> > you are

> > > reluctant to call a navamsha by the nomenclature navamsha rasi.

> > This

> > > makes it difficult to convey what I mean to say in English as

that

> > is

> > > the language of the net and which both of us know. Now since you

> > do not

> > > want to use the word Mesha navamsha as Mesha is a rashi and by

> > your

> > > logic it can not be a navamsha, it becomes difficult to convey

> > what I

> > > understand by the texts.

> > >

> > > I will like to draw your attention to the literal meaning of the

> > word

> > > rasi. It means a heap and nothing more. In astrology since it

> > > encompasses many stars that make up a nakshatra the 1/12th

> > division of

> > > the zodiac is called a Rasi. Or at least this is my

understanding

> > of the

> > > reason of using the word rasi for the 1/12th division of the

> > zodiac.

> > >

> > > I do not agree that by Chandra in Guru Varga it is meant that

> > Varga of

> > > Chandra is being seen. To me we are talking about is whether

> > Chandra is

> > > falling in the Varga of Guru in which ever rasi he is occupying.

> > So in

> > > Navamsha we see whether Chandra is occupying Pisces or

Sagittarius

> > > navamsha. I also do not agree that there are Vargas of Chandra

or

> > of any

> > > planet for that matter. The 16 Vargas that Parashara talks about

> > are

> > > that of a Rasi, beginning from the Rashi itself.

> > >

> > > If the Vargas are not owned by different planets, pray why does

> > the sage

> > > tell us to see occupation of a friend, own etc. Varga to assess

> > the

> > > strength of a planet in the Varga concerned?

> > >

> > > I have interacted with many astrologers of yesteryears (with

> > respect to

> > > my age group) and have never found them claiming the Vargas to

be

> > of

> > > only lagna and planets.

> > >

> > > If you insist that sage Parashara gave the SU. 52.- " Tatra

> > bhrigwongaraka

> > > varge paradarikaha " , perhaps you are referring to some edition

of

> > BPHS

> > > that I do not have. However I do have that in the umpteen

> > different

> > > texts on Jaimini that I do have in my library. And by the way,

> > some

> > > scholars have interpreted that to mean 9th from Karakamsha and

not

> > the 2nd.

> > >

> > > I do not agree that a graha can simultaneously occupy the Varga

of

> > both

> > > Venus and Mars, simultaneously, as is being suggested whether in

> > rasi or

> > > in any of the Vargas. It could only occupy one or the other.

> > >

> > > I have seen you arguing in favor of looking at the Shadvargas of

> > the

> > > grahas Venus and Mars. I would like you to look at all the six

> > charts

> > > whose Vargas together are referred as Shadvargas and try to find

> > out

> > > whether they do indeed contain the 6 Vargas of Venus and 6

Vargas

> > or

> > > Mars. I am sure that you will find them to contain only 5 Vargas

> > each of

> > > the grahas. Once you confirm this by looking at the 6 Vargas

your

> > self,

> > > tell me how one can look at Shadvargas of Venus or Mars as is

> > being

> > > suggested to be the interpretation of the sutra that you are

> > referring to.

> > >

> > > You may also be interested to know that Parashara talks of AK

> > falling in

> > > the Varga of Chandra, Mars or Venus also having the roving eye

on

> > others

> > > wives. So the combination of Venus and Mars being the only one

> > giving

> > > the roving eye for other's wives, that you are advancing as a

> > standalone

> > > principle, may not, necessarily, be the way the sage looked at

> > their

> > > interpretation.

> > >

> > > Take care,

> > > Chandrashekhar.

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > >

> > > > Those were written by me.

> > > >

> > > > I am very dissappointed to see that ,inspite of repeating

numerus

> > > > times,you are unable to get what i am saying.

> > > >

> > > > I am not talking about rashis lorded by shukra or Mars here.I

am

> > > > talking about the shadvargas vargas of mars and shukra.

> > > >

> > > > Pls tell me what is the meaning of shadvargas or simply Varga

of

> > > > lagna.

> > > >

> > > > It is the rashi in which lagna is placed.The navamshaka of

> > > > Lagna,Trimshamshaka of Lagna etc.Can we see any lordship as

you

> > > > say.Lagna does not own any rashi.

> > > >

> > > > Similarly when we say vargas of Venus -It means Rashi of

> > > > Venus,Hora,navamshaka,drekkana,trimshamshaka etc.

> > > >

> > > > Shadvarga is never the rashi owned by a planet.Then Lagna can

> > never

> > > > have shadvarga.

> > > >

> > > > On the other hand if we say,Chandra in Guru Varga - We are not

> > seeing

> > > > the shadvarga of Guru,but that of chandra.Is chandra placed in

> > Guru

> > > > Rashi?Is Chandra navamshaka in Guru Rashi.Is Chandra

> > Trimshamshaka in

> > > > Guru Rashi etc is what we check.If so chandras vargas fall in

> > guru

> > > > rashis or we say chandra is in guruvargas.

> > > >

> > > > For the same reason schoplars of yesteryears always say Vargas

> > are

> > > > for our natal Lagna and Planets.

> > > >

> > > > On the other hand you are taking them as owned by a

planet.Every

> > > > shadvarga that derive is like that.You may check this with

shri

> > > > Narasimha,how he is deriving it for his software.

> > > >

> > > > For the same reason Bhrigu and Angara can have Varga together

in

> > the

> > > > Rashi which is 2nd from Karakamsha.Sage clearly talks about

the

> > > > vargas from both.Moreover the next shloka is talking about

Mars

> > and

> > > > Venus together or aspecting the 2nd from karakamsha.

> > > >

> > > > On the other hand if we go by your explanation,we have to opt

for

> > > > just one among shukra or Mars which is not proper.Their Joint

> > > > influence creates sexual drive.

> > > >

> > > > I request you to kindly read this with care.

> > > >

> > > > Rspect

> > > > Pradeep

> > > >

> > > >

> > <%40>

> > > > <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > >

> > > > > The below remarks are not from my mail at all. I do not know

> > why

> > > > you

> > > > > think I would write that. I am sure you know that this is

not

> > my

> > > > style

> > > > > of writing at all.

> > > > >

> > > > > " >From my experience -Mars + Venus creates certin

behaviour.I

> > feel

> > > > you

> > > > > too would have experienced this.Why are you going for the

varga

> > > > owned by

> > > > > just one of them and that too without a planetary link is

> > really

> > > > > worrying me.Shri Rath has translated so,i agree.But i have

an

> > > > > inner feeling that Shri Rath will definitely correct this

for

> > the

> > > > benfit

> > > > > of jyotish community. "

> > > > >

> > > > > As to why I said they could not be having their Vargas

> > together in

> > > > one

> > > > > rasi or Bhava does not need any deeper explanation. If you

are

> > > > looking

> > > > > at the 2nd from Karakamsha in the rasi chart, as you think

is

> > > > right, you

> > > > > could not have both Mesha and Vrishabha or Tula and

Vrishchika

> > rasi

> > > > in

> > > > > 2nd from the Karakamsha, is that not so? Similarly if in

> > navamsha

> > > > chart

> > > > > the 2nd from Karakamsha is to be seen, the 2nd could be not

> > both

> > > > navamshas.

> > > > > Take care,

> > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > >

> > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > > >

> > > > > > I though you meant so.Because in subsequent lines we can

see

> > > > Swamsha

> > > > > > and Karakamsha being used for the same purpose.But if you

> > think

> > > > > > there are other places where swamsha is used for say

> > > > Lagnamsha ,then

> > > > > > i can trust you if you can point me to that. This should

not

> > be a

> > > > > > problem and in no way it will affect us.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Venus and Mars can ofcourse have their Vargas in a single

> > rashi or

> > > > > > Bhava.Venus can have navamsha there,Mars can have navamsha

> > > > > > there,Venus can have Trimshamsha there,Mars can have

> > Trimshamsha

> > > > > > there,they both can have drekkana there etc etc.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Thus sage is talking about Bhrigu and Angara both (as you

> > have

> > > > > > identified gramattically) having varga there and it is

very

> > much

> > > > > > possible.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > If you note the next line -Sage is talking about both

Venus

> > and

> > > > Mars

> > > > > > joining or aspecting the 2nd from Karakamsha.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > >From my experience -Mars + Venus creates certin

behaviour.I

> > feel

> > > > you

> > > > > > too would have experienced this.Why are you going for the

> > varga

> > > > > > owned by just one of them and that too without a planetary

> > link is

> > > > > > really worrying me.Shri Rath has translated so,i

agree.But i

> > have

> > > > an

> > > > > > inner feeling that Shri Rath will definitely correct this

> > for the

> > > > > > benfit of jyotish community.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > I am surprised as to why you say so.That they cannot have

> > > > together.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Respect

> > > > > > Pardeep

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > <%40>

> > > > <%40>

> > > > > > <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> > > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > I have never said that I do not think that Swamsha and

> > > > Karakamsha

> > > > > > are

> > > > > > > different where the context demands so. At the same

time I

> > do

> > > > not

> > > > > > think

> > > > > > > grammar can be put to rest to in the name of context,

> > without

> > > > some

> > > > > > sound

> > > > > > > reason.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Of course if you want contextual translation only, then

> > one can

> > > > > > > certainly say that the " Meshadi raashige swaamshe " can

> > always be

> > > > > > > translated as " Falling in Mesha navamsha in Mesha rasi

> > etc. " .

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > By the way " Tatra Bhrigwonkaraka Varge " , that you

> > mention, does

> > > > > > not

> > > > > > > mean varga of both Venus and mars, but of varga of

Venus OR

> > > > Mars,

> > > > > > due to

> > > > > > > the grammar only. varga of two planets can not fall in

one

> > > > > > > bhava/amsha/rasi whether in rasi or Navamsha or any

other

> > chart.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Take care,

> > > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Grammatically,what you are saying is also true.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > But Jyotish defintions play a preceding role in

choosing

> > the

> > > > > > > > grammatical meaning.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > For example one meaning of labhe ,Swamshe etc is in

the

> > 11th

> > > > in

> > > > > > > > swamsha etc.

> > > > > > > > But if we go by that we will definitely translate

> > swamshe in

> > > > > > meshadi

> > > > > > > > rashige as ''in Swamsha'',thereby translating it as

one

> > full

> > > > > > > > chart.This as you too agree,then cannot pass the

test,of

> > the

> > > > > > > > subsequent shlokas.I understand gladly that you too

> > agree that

> > > > > > > > swamsha and karakamsha are the same.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > So the context decides plural/singular and not

> > necessarily

> > > > > > the ''E''

> > > > > > > > as you have rightly mentioned.

> > > > > > > > But in essence what i want to say is ''E'' does not

> > always

> > > > > > mean ''in

> > > > > > > > the'' as you have interpreted.Labheshe is an

> > example.Karake

> > > > is an

> > > > > > > > example.

> > > > > > > > Thus it can very well mean Varga of Shukra and Mars-

> > which can

> > > > > > then be

> > > > > > > > six vargas or one varga.(Not lordship)

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Tatra Bhrigwonkaraka Varge -

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Tatra -(There) In the second from Karakamsha

> > > > > > > > Varga or Vargas of Venus and Mars

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Now why should we need two qualifiesrs for destination

(1)

> > In

> > > > the

> > > > > > 2nd

> > > > > > > > from karakamsha 2)in the vargas of?)-if we had another

> > planet

> > > > > > then

> > > > > > > > your interpretation is right.That planet will answer

the

> > > > > > question -

> > > > > > > > who is in the vargas of ?

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Similarly - Swamshad dhane Shukrar

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Swamshad dhane is already pointing to destination- why

> > should

> > > > we

> > > > > > need

> > > > > > > > another ''in the'' vargas of.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > On the other hand if we say in the 2nd from

karakamsha if

> > > > varga

> > > > > > of

> > > > > > > > mars and venus are present,it fits in

> > grammatically.Moreover

> > > > as

> > > > > > i had

> > > > > > > > mentioned rashi lordship without planetary link

> > > > (placement/amsha

> > > > > > etc)

> > > > > > > > is too general.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Respect

> > > > > > > > Pradeep

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > <%40>

> > > > <%40>

> > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > <%40>,

Chandrashekhar

> > > > > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > I may be wrong but the " E " by itself does not point

to

> > > > plural.

> > > > > > It

> > > > > > > > is the

> > > > > > > > > word Shadvarga indicating 6 Vargas that is one group

> > > > (though it

> > > > > > > > contains

> > > > > > > > > more than one unit) and so " Varge " , the singular is

> > used

> > > > with

> > > > > > that.

> > > > > > > > The

> > > > > > > > > " E " means " in " . I would be happy if an example

> > of " Varge "

> > > > being

> > > > > > > > plural

> > > > > > > > > can be given.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > I do not at all think that Vargaka or Varga is

> > singular and

> > > > > > Vargake

> > > > > > > > or

> > > > > > > > > Varge is plural, at all. Both the manner of using

the

> > word

> > > > only

> > > > > > > > > indicates singular. it is no use projecting what is

> > clearly

> > > > > > Saptami

> > > > > > > > > vibhakti and singular as being a plural word. If

Varga

> > is

> > > > to be

> > > > > > > > used as

> > > > > > > > > dvivachana it may become " VargyoH " or " VargeSu " (for

> > > > > > bahuvachan)

> > > > > > > > and not

> > > > > > > > > Varge. Perhaps some Sanskrit scholar on the list

would

> > like

> > > > to

> > > > > > > > comment

> > > > > > > > > on this.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > So, much as I would like it to resolve, the issue

> > remains

> > > > > > > > unresolved.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > I will give you a relevant example to explain how

> > VarGE

> > > > can

> > > > > > be

> > > > > > > > used in

> > > > > > > > > > context of plural.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Lagna Shad-VargaKE - Is pointing to all vargas -

> > > > Plural.You

> > > > > > may

> > > > > > > > note

> > > > > > > > > > that the grammatical ending is with ''E'' showing

> > plurals

> > > > > > too can

> > > > > > > > be

> > > > > > > > > > expressed with such an ending.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Now from Vrishamsha''Ka'' and Tulamsha example we

can

> > > > > > conclude

> > > > > > > > that

> > > > > > > > > > VargaKA and VarGA can be used for the same

purpose in

> > > > > > Ekavachan or

> > > > > > > > > > singular form and VargaKE and VarGE can be used

for

> > > > > > Bahuvachan or

> > > > > > > > > > Plural form.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > I hope this may help us in resolving our issue.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Respect

> > > > > > > > > > Pradeep

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

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

---

> > -----

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

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.10.0/886 -

> > Release

> > > > > > Date:

> > > > > > > > 7/4/2007 1:40 PM

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been

removed]

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

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

---

> > -

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

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.10.0/886 -

Release

> > > > Date:

> > > > > > 7/4/2007 1:40 PM

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

[Guest guest]

Dear Pradeep,

 

If lagna is a bindu a you propose, and nothing more, then how can it

indicate an entire rasi? Now if this is correct, and technically it is,

then by your reckoning there is no need to look at rasis too. Is that

what you mean to say?

 

If shadvargas are not related to the portion falling in the lagna rasis,

which holds the degree of lagna Madhya, then it appears we must ask the

sages to redefine Vargas. I doubt they need our advise.

 

Take care,

Chandrashekhar.

 

vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

>

> Dear Chandrashekhar ji

>

> There was a purpose.I just wanted to explain it to the members if

> some of them are not sure on what shadvarga of lagna is and how it

> is calculated.

>

> As you have said Vargas are divisions of a rashi.But shadvargas of

> Lagna is not the Vargas falling in Lagna.Here lagna is not a

> rashi,but a bindu.Vargas are found from a degree.The degree of a

> planet or degree of lagna.

>

> As you may know we do notneed six charts to dtermine shadvargas of

> lagna.All we need is the degree of lagna and the rashi rising.

>

> Let us take an example.Lagna is at 11 degrees in dhanu.

>

> Let us find the shadvargas of Lagna with th help of rising rashi and

> degree.

>

> 1st Varga - The Rashi in which Lagna bindu is falling - Dhanu

> 2nd Varga - The Hora in which Lagna bindu is falling - As 11 degrees

> falls in the 1st half of dhanu - Surya Hora

> 3rd Varga - The drekkana in which Lagna bindu is falling - As 11

> degrees falls in the 2nd 1/3rd of dhanu - Drekkana is Mesha.

> 4th Varga - As 11 degrees falls in the 3rd saptamsha ,Lagna saptamsha

> is Kumbha.

>

> Similraly - Lagna navamsha is Karka,Lagna Trimshamsha is dhanu.

>

> Thus the purpose of whole exercise was to say that when we say

> shadvargas of Lagna or Mars,it does not mean the rashis owned by

> Lagna or Mars.But the Rashis on towhich they are placed,having

> hora,drekkana etc etc.

>

> Vargas of Mars in the 2nd Rashi from karakamsha too is no differet.

>

> There are many meanings,that is why Rashi is called as

> Kshethra /Riksha /havana etc.But i don't think sage will use the

> saword to represent something belonging to same class.

>

> For example sage will not use ''sva'' to mean 2nd as well as 3rd.Then

> we cannot interpret.

>

> Similarly Rashi and navamsha will not be represented using the same

> word.Rashi/Kshethra/Riksha/Bhvana/Lagna etc are synonyms an ifthey

> are used for navamsha then what is the whole purpose behind defintion.

>

> On the other hand sva was used for iems from different classes.

>

> This wasin mind while making such a statement.I will try my best to

> polish my style of writing.I accept my limitations in writing.

>

> Respect

> Pradeep

>

>

> <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> <chandrashekhar46 wrote:

> >

> > Dear Pradeep,

> >

> > I have not understood your question or the intent behind that. The

> > Vargas are divisions, within a rasi, ruled by different grahas. So

> if

> > one wants t look at Vargas falling in lagna the shad Vargas will

> mean

> > the rasi equivalent occurring at lagna position in the 6 divisional

> > charts of Rashi, Hora, Dreshkana, Navamsha, Dwaadashamsha and

> > Trimshamsha. Or at least this is what I have learnt.

> >

> > Sages did not use words in vain or context. I agree. But that does

> not

> > mean they used the words to mean only one thing always.

> >

> > I never said that the meaning can be changed to suit our

> convenience and

> > I would request you not to attribute such sentiments to me.

> >

> > However I do say that word are used in different contexts to mean

> > different things, especially in Sanskrit texts of Jyotish. I have,

> just

> > a few minutes back use of " Sva " with different meaning at different

> > places by Varaha Mihira to you. I hope you do not also attribute

> the

> > words that you attributed to me to the venerated Varaha Mihira.

> >

> > Take care,

> > Chandrashekhar,.

> >

> > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > >

> > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > >

> > > Pls tell me what you mean by shadvargas of lagna.How do you find

> > > them.Do you go by ownership or placement

> (Rashi/navamsha/dwadshamsha

> > > etc).

> > >

> > > There are shlokas in Varahamihiras text which says ,Okarkshe

> > > Purushamshakae.

> > >

> > > Which means in Ojarashi and Oja amsha.

> > >

> > > As per me sages will not use any words out of context.If he wants

> to

> > > say amsha he will mention it.He will not use Rashi to mean as

> amsha.

> > >

> > > Ojarkshe is Oja Rashi.Similarly Paparkshe is Papa Rashi.

> > >

> > > If you want to say as per our conveninece we can change the

> meaning

> > > of riksha/rashi/bhavana/bhavas as navamsha then i cannot say

> > > anything.

> > >

> > > I can only respect your views.

> > >

> > > Respect

> > > Pradeep

> > >

> <%40>

> > > <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > >

> > > > I will tell you why that happens. You begin with quoting

> Parashara

> > > and

> > > > then give a sutra from Jaimini as being said by Parashara.

> > > > Interpretation of sutras is not the easiest of the things, more

> so

> > > with

> > > > Jaimini's Upadesha sutras. That the sutras use KaTaPaYaadi

> > > encryption

> > > > makes them even more difficult to interpret. I am sure you have

> > > noticed

> > > > this when Sreenadh interpreted the KaTaPaYaadi Varga in a wrong

> > > fashion.

> > > >

> > > > Then there is your insistence to let Sanskrit grammar give a go

> by

> > > if

> > > > that can make interpretation of a shloka or sutra fit your

> > > proposition.

> > > >

> > > > Any of the Shodasha Vargas of a rasi can be referred to as

> Varga,

> > > but as

> > > > far as I know in astrology, when one talks of Varga, without

> > > qualifying

> > > > it, or Amshas that generally refers to navamsha or

> Dwadashaamsha.

> > > >

> > > > Another reason that we can not agree, or seem to agree, is that

> > > you are

> > > > reluctant to call a navamsha by the nomenclature navamsha rasi.

> > > This

> > > > makes it difficult to convey what I mean to say in English as

> that

> > > is

> > > > the language of the net and which both of us know. Now since you

> > > do not

> > > > want to use the word Mesha navamsha as Mesha is a rashi and by

> > > your

> > > > logic it can not be a navamsha, it becomes difficult to convey

> > > what I

> > > > understand by the texts.

> > > >

> > > > I will like to draw your attention to the literal meaning of the

> > > word

> > > > rasi. It means a heap and nothing more. In astrology since it

> > > > encompasses many stars that make up a nakshatra the 1/12th

> > > division of

> > > > the zodiac is called a Rasi. Or at least this is my

> understanding

> > > of the

> > > > reason of using the word rasi for the 1/12th division of the

> > > zodiac.

> > > >

> > > > I do not agree that by Chandra in Guru Varga it is meant that

> > > Varga of

> > > > Chandra is being seen. To me we are talking about is whether

> > > Chandra is

> > > > falling in the Varga of Guru in which ever rasi he is occupying.

> > > So in

> > > > Navamsha we see whether Chandra is occupying Pisces or

> Sagittarius

> > > > navamsha. I also do not agree that there are Vargas of Chandra

> or

> > > of any

> > > > planet for that matter. The 16 Vargas that Parashara talks about

> > > are

> > > > that of a Rasi, beginning from the Rashi itself.

> > > >

> > > > If the Vargas are not owned by different planets, pray why does

> > > the sage

> > > > tell us to see occupation of a friend, own etc. Varga to assess

> > > the

> > > > strength of a planet in the Varga concerned?

> > > >

> > > > I have interacted with many astrologers of yesteryears (with

> > > respect to

> > > > my age group) and have never found them claiming the Vargas to

> be

> > > of

> > > > only lagna and planets.

> > > >

> > > > If you insist that sage Parashara gave the SU. 52.- " Tatra

> > > bhrigwongaraka

> > > > varge paradarikaha " , perhaps you are referring to some edition

> of

> > > BPHS

> > > > that I do not have. However I do have that in the umpteen

> > > different

> > > > texts on Jaimini that I do have in my library. And by the way,

> > > some

> > > > scholars have interpreted that to mean 9th from Karakamsha and

> not

> > > the 2nd.

> > > >

> > > > I do not agree that a graha can simultaneously occupy the Varga

> of

> > > both

> > > > Venus and Mars, simultaneously, as is being suggested whether in

> > > rasi or

> > > > in any of the Vargas. It could only occupy one or the other.

> > > >

> > > > I have seen you arguing in favor of looking at the Shadvargas of

> > > the

> > > > grahas Venus and Mars. I would like you to look at all the six

> > > charts

> > > > whose Vargas together are referred as Shadvargas and try to find

> > > out

> > > > whether they do indeed contain the 6 Vargas of Venus and 6

> Vargas

> > > or

> > > > Mars. I am sure that you will find them to contain only 5 Vargas

> > > each of

> > > > the grahas. Once you confirm this by looking at the 6 Vargas

> your

> > > self,

> > > > tell me how one can look at Shadvargas of Venus or Mars as is

> > > being

> > > > suggested to be the interpretation of the sutra that you are

> > > referring to.

> > > >

> > > > You may also be interested to know that Parashara talks of AK

> > > falling in

> > > > the Varga of Chandra, Mars or Venus also having the roving eye

> on

> > > others

> > > > wives. So the combination of Venus and Mars being the only one

> > > giving

> > > > the roving eye for other's wives, that you are advancing as a

> > > standalone

> > > > principle, may not, necessarily, be the way the sage looked at

> > > their

> > > > interpretation.

> > > >

> > > > Take care,

> > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > >

> > > > > Those were written by me.

> > > > >

> > > > > I am very dissappointed to see that ,inspite of repeating

> numerus

> > > > > times,you are unable to get what i am saying.

> > > > >

> > > > > I am not talking about rashis lorded by shukra or Mars here.I

> am

> > > > > talking about the shadvargas vargas of mars and shukra.

> > > > >

> > > > > Pls tell me what is the meaning of shadvargas or simply Varga

> of

> > > > > lagna.

> > > > >

> > > > > It is the rashi in which lagna is placed.The navamshaka of

> > > > > Lagna,Trimshamshaka of Lagna etc.Can we see any lordship as

> you

> > > > > say.Lagna does not own any rashi.

> > > > >

> > > > > Similarly when we say vargas of Venus -It means Rashi of

> > > > > Venus,Hora,navamshaka,drekkana,trimshamshaka etc.

> > > > >

> > > > > Shadvarga is never the rashi owned by a planet.Then Lagna can

> > > never

> > > > > have shadvarga.

> > > > >

> > > > > On the other hand if we say,Chandra in Guru Varga - We are not

> > > seeing

> > > > > the shadvarga of Guru,but that of chandra.Is chandra placed in

> > > Guru

> > > > > Rashi?Is Chandra navamshaka in Guru Rashi.Is Chandra

> > > Trimshamshaka in

> > > > > Guru Rashi etc is what we check.If so chandras vargas fall in

> > > guru

> > > > > rashis or we say chandra is in guruvargas.

> > > > >

> > > > > For the same reason schoplars of yesteryears always say Vargas

> > > are

> > > > > for our natal Lagna and Planets.

> > > > >

> > > > > On the other hand you are taking them as owned by a

> planet.Every

> > > > > shadvarga that derive is like that.You may check this with

> shri

> > > > > Narasimha,how he is deriving it for his software.

> > > > >

> > > > > For the same reason Bhrigu and Angara can have Varga together

> in

> > > the

> > > > > Rashi which is 2nd from Karakamsha.Sage clearly talks about

> the

> > > > > vargas from both.Moreover the next shloka is talking about

> Mars

> > > and

> > > > > Venus together or aspecting the 2nd from karakamsha.

> > > > >

> > > > > On the other hand if we go by your explanation,we have to opt

> for

> > > > > just one among shukra or Mars which is not proper.Their Joint

> > > > > influence creates sexual drive.

> > > > >

> > > > > I request you to kindly read this with care.

> > > > >

> > > > > Rspect

> > > > > Pradeep

> > > > >

> > > > >

> <%40>

> > > <%40>

> > > > > <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > > >

> > > > > > The below remarks are not from my mail at all. I do not know

> > > why

> > > > > you

> > > > > > think I would write that. I am sure you know that this is

> not

> > > my

> > > > > style

> > > > > > of writing at all.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > " >From my experience -Mars + Venus creates certin

> behaviour.I

> > > feel

> > > > > you

> > > > > > too would have experienced this.Why are you going for the

> varga

> > > > > owned by

> > > > > > just one of them and that too without a planetary link is

> > > really

> > > > > > worrying me.Shri Rath has translated so,i agree.But i have

> an

> > > > > > inner feeling that Shri Rath will definitely correct this

> for

> > > the

> > > > > benfit

> > > > > > of jyotish community. "

> > > > > >

> > > > > > As to why I said they could not be having their Vargas

> > > together in

> > > > > one

> > > > > > rasi or Bhava does not need any deeper explanation. If you

> are

> > > > > looking

> > > > > > at the 2nd from Karakamsha in the rasi chart, as you think

> is

> > > > > right, you

> > > > > > could not have both Mesha and Vrishabha or Tula and

> Vrishchika

> > > rasi

> > > > > in

> > > > > > 2nd from the Karakamsha, is that not so? Similarly if in

> > > navamsha

> > > > > chart

> > > > > > the 2nd from Karakamsha is to be seen, the 2nd could be not

> > > both

> > > > > navamshas.

> > > > > > Take care,

> > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > I though you meant so.Because in subsequent lines we can

> see

> > > > > Swamsha

> > > > > > > and Karakamsha being used for the same purpose.But if you

> > > think

> > > > > > > there are other places where swamsha is used for say

> > > > > Lagnamsha ,then

> > > > > > > i can trust you if you can point me to that. This should

> not

> > > be a

> > > > > > > problem and in no way it will affect us.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Venus and Mars can ofcourse have their Vargas in a single

> > > rashi or

> > > > > > > Bhava.Venus can have navamsha there,Mars can have navamsha

> > > > > > > there,Venus can have Trimshamsha there,Mars can have

> > > Trimshamsha

> > > > > > > there,they both can have drekkana there etc etc.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Thus sage is talking about Bhrigu and Angara both (as you

> > > have

> > > > > > > identified gramattically) having varga there and it is

> very

> > > much

> > > > > > > possible.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > If you note the next line -Sage is talking about both

> Venus

> > > and

> > > > > Mars

> > > > > > > joining or aspecting the 2nd from Karakamsha.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >From my experience -Mars + Venus creates certin

> behaviour.I

> > > feel

> > > > > you

> > > > > > > too would have experienced this.Why are you going for the

> > > varga

> > > > > > > owned by just one of them and that too without a planetary

> > > link is

> > > > > > > really worrying me.Shri Rath has translated so,i

> agree.But i

> > > have

> > > > > an

> > > > > > > inner feeling that Shri Rath will definitely correct this

> > > for the

> > > > > > > benfit of jyotish community.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > I am surprised as to why you say so.That they cannot have

> > > > > together.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Respect

> > > > > > > Pardeep

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> <%40>

> > > <%40>

> > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> > > > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > I have never said that I do not think that Swamsha and

> > > > > Karakamsha

> > > > > > > are

> > > > > > > > different where the context demands so. At the same

> time I

> > > do

> > > > > not

> > > > > > > think

> > > > > > > > grammar can be put to rest to in the name of context,

> > > without

> > > > > some

> > > > > > > sound

> > > > > > > > reason.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Of course if you want contextual translation only, then

> > > one can

> > > > > > > > certainly say that the " Meshadi raashige swaamshe " can

> > > always be

> > > > > > > > translated as " Falling in Mesha navamsha in Mesha rasi

> > > etc. " .

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > By the way " Tatra Bhrigwonkaraka Varge " , that you

> > > mention, does

> > > > > > > not

> > > > > > > > mean varga of both Venus and mars, but of varga of

> Venus OR

> > > > > Mars,

> > > > > > > due to

> > > > > > > > the grammar only. varga of two planets can not fall in

> one

> > > > > > > > bhava/amsha/rasi whether in rasi or Navamsha or any

> other

> > > chart.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Take care,

> > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Grammatically,what you are saying is also true.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > But Jyotish defintions play a preceding role in

> choosing

> > > the

> > > > > > > > > grammatical meaning.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > For example one meaning of labhe ,Swamshe etc is in

> the

> > > 11th

> > > > > in

> > > > > > > > > swamsha etc.

> > > > > > > > > But if we go by that we will definitely translate

> > > swamshe in

> > > > > > > meshadi

> > > > > > > > > rashige as ''in Swamsha'',thereby translating it as

> one

> > > full

> > > > > > > > > chart.This as you too agree,then cannot pass the

> test,of

> > > the

> > > > > > > > > subsequent shlokas.I understand gladly that you too

> > > agree that

> > > > > > > > > swamsha and karakamsha are the same.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > So the context decides plural/singular and not

> > > necessarily

> > > > > > > the ''E''

> > > > > > > > > as you have rightly mentioned.

> > > > > > > > > But in essence what i want to say is ''E'' does not

> > > always

> > > > > > > mean ''in

> > > > > > > > > the'' as you have interpreted.Labheshe is an

> > > example.Karake

> > > > > is an

> > > > > > > > > example.

> > > > > > > > > Thus it can very well mean Varga of Shukra and Mars-

> > > which can

> > > > > > > then be

> > > > > > > > > six vargas or one varga.(Not lordship)

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Tatra Bhrigwonkaraka Varge -

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Tatra -(There) In the second from Karakamsha

> > > > > > > > > Varga or Vargas of Venus and Mars

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Now why should we need two qualifiesrs for destination

> (1)

> > > In

> > > > > the

> > > > > > > 2nd

> > > > > > > > > from karakamsha 2)in the vargas of?)-if we had another

> > > planet

> > > > > > > then

> > > > > > > > > your interpretation is right.That planet will answer

> the

> > > > > > > question -

> > > > > > > > > who is in the vargas of ?

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Similarly - Swamshad dhane Shukrar

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Swamshad dhane is already pointing to destination- why

> > > should

> > > > > we

> > > > > > > need

> > > > > > > > > another ''in the'' vargas of.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > On the other hand if we say in the 2nd from

> karakamsha if

> > > > > varga

> > > > > > > of

> > > > > > > > > mars and venus are present,it fits in

> > > grammatically.Moreover

> > > > > as

> > > > > > > i had

> > > > > > > > > mentioned rashi lordship without planetary link

> > > > > (placement/amsha

> > > > > > > etc)

> > > > > > > > > is too general.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Respect

> > > > > > > > > Pradeep

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> <%40>

> > > <%40>

> > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > <%40>,

> Chandrashekhar

> > > > > > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > I may be wrong but the " E " by itself does not point

> to

> > > > > plural.

> > > > > > > It

> > > > > > > > > is the

> > > > > > > > > > word Shadvarga indicating 6 Vargas that is one group

> > > > > (though it

> > > > > > > > > contains

> > > > > > > > > > more than one unit) and so " Varge " , the singular is

> > > used

> > > > > with

> > > > > > > that.

> > > > > > > > > The

> > > > > > > > > > " E " means " in " . I would be happy if an example

> > > of " Varge "

> > > > > being

> > > > > > > > > plural

> > > > > > > > > > can be given.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > I do not at all think that Vargaka or Varga is

> > > singular and

> > > > > > > Vargake

> > > > > > > > > or

> > > > > > > > > > Varge is plural, at all. Both the manner of using

> the

> > > word

> > > > > only

> > > > > > > > > > indicates singular. it is no use projecting what is

> > > clearly

> > > > > > > Saptami

> > > > > > > > > > vibhakti and singular as being a plural word. If

> Varga

> > > is

> > > > > to be

> > > > > > > > > used as

> > > > > > > > > > dvivachana it may become " VargyoH " or " VargeSu " (for

> > > > > > > bahuvachan)

> > > > > > > > > and not

> > > > > > > > > > Varge. Perhaps some Sanskrit scholar on the list

> would

> > > like

> > > > > to

> > > > > > > > > comment

> > > > > > > > > > on this.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > So, much as I would like it to resolve, the issue

> > > remains

> > > > > > > > > unresolved.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > I will give you a relevant example to explain how

> > > VarGE

> > > > > can

> > > > > > > be

> > > > > > > > > used in

> > > > > > > > > > > context of plural.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Lagna Shad-VargaKE - Is pointing to all vargas -

> > > > > Plural.You

> > > > > > > may

> > > > > > > > > note

> > > > > > > > > > > that the grammatical ending is with ''E'' showing

> > > plurals

> > > > > > > too can

> > > > > > > > > be

> > > > > > > > > > > expressed with such an ending.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Now from Vrishamsha''Ka'' and Tulamsha example we

> can

> > > > > > > conclude

> > > > > > > > > that

> > > > > > > > > > > VargaKA and VarGA can be used for the same

> purpose in

> > > > > > > Ekavachan or

> > > > > > > > > > > singular form and VargaKE and VarGE can be used

> for

> > > > > > > Bahuvachan or

> > > > > > > > > > > Plural form.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > I hope this may help us in resolving our issue.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Respect

> > > > > > > > > > > Pradeep

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

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

> ---

> > > -----

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

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.10.0/886 -

> > > Release

> > > > > > > Date:

> > > > > > > > > 7/4/2007 1:40 PM

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been

> removed]

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

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

> ---

> > > -

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

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.10.0/886 -

> Release

> > > > > Date:

> > > > > > > 7/4/2007 1:40 PM

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

[Guest guest]

Dear Chandrashekhar ji

 

Lagna as a bindu was mentioned for driving home the shadvarga

calculations,if any members were having doubts.For shadvarga

calculation of planets too we need the bindu or degree of a planet

within a rashi, as you are aware.

 

We have to look at Rashis.This is so because Rashi (one 30 degree

sector ) is the first varga.As this Varga is synonymous with Bhava

houses are analysed w.r to Rashis.

 

Respect

Pradeep

 

 

, Chandrashekhar

<chandrashekhar46 wrote:

>

> Dear Pradeep,

>

> If lagna is a bindu a you propose, and nothing more, then how can

it

> indicate an entire rasi? Now if this is correct, and technically

it is,

> then by your reckoning there is no need to look at rasis too. Is

that

> what you mean to say?

>

> If shadvargas are not related to the portion falling in the lagna

rasis,

> which holds the degree of lagna Madhya, then it appears we must ask

the

> sages to redefine Vargas. I doubt they need our advise.

>

> Take care,

> Chandrashekhar.

>

> vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> >

> > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> >

> > There was a purpose.I just wanted to explain it to the members if

> > some of them are not sure on what shadvarga of lagna is and how it

> > is calculated.

> >

> > As you have said Vargas are divisions of a rashi.But shadvargas of

> > Lagna is not the Vargas falling in Lagna.Here lagna is not a

> > rashi,but a bindu.Vargas are found from a degree.The degree of a

> > planet or degree of lagna.

> >

> > As you may know we do notneed six charts to dtermine shadvargas of

> > lagna.All we need is the degree of lagna and the rashi rising.

> >

> > Let us take an example.Lagna is at 11 degrees in dhanu.

> >

> > Let us find the shadvargas of Lagna with th help of rising rashi

and

> > degree.

> >

> > 1st Varga - The Rashi in which Lagna bindu is falling - Dhanu

> > 2nd Varga - The Hora in which Lagna bindu is falling - As 11

degrees

> > falls in the 1st half of dhanu - Surya Hora

> > 3rd Varga - The drekkana in which Lagna bindu is falling - As 11

> > degrees falls in the 2nd 1/3rd of dhanu - Drekkana is Mesha.

> > 4th Varga - As 11 degrees falls in the 3rd saptamsha ,Lagna

saptamsha

> > is Kumbha.

> >

> > Similraly - Lagna navamsha is Karka,Lagna Trimshamsha is dhanu.

> >

> > Thus the purpose of whole exercise was to say that when we say

> > shadvargas of Lagna or Mars,it does not mean the rashis owned by

> > Lagna or Mars.But the Rashis on towhich they are placed,having

> > hora,drekkana etc etc.

> >

> > Vargas of Mars in the 2nd Rashi from karakamsha too is no

differet.

> >

> > There are many meanings,that is why Rashi is called as

> > Kshethra /Riksha /havana etc.But i don't think sage will use the

> > saword to represent something belonging to same class.

> >

> > For example sage will not use ''sva'' to mean 2nd as well as

3rd.Then

> > we cannot interpret.

> >

> > Similarly Rashi and navamsha will not be represented using the

same

> > word.Rashi/Kshethra/Riksha/Bhvana/Lagna etc are synonyms an ifthey

> > are used for navamsha then what is the whole purpose behind

defintion.

> >

> > On the other hand sva was used for iems from different classes.

> >

> > This wasin mind while making such a statement.I will try my best

to

> > polish my style of writing.I accept my limitations in writing.

> >

> > Respect

> > Pradeep

> >

> >

> > <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > >

> > > Dear Pradeep,

> > >

> > > I have not understood your question or the intent behind that.

The

> > > Vargas are divisions, within a rasi, ruled by different grahas.

So

> > if

> > > one wants t look at Vargas falling in lagna the shad Vargas will

> > mean

> > > the rasi equivalent occurring at lagna position in the 6

divisional

> > > charts of Rashi, Hora, Dreshkana, Navamsha, Dwaadashamsha and

> > > Trimshamsha. Or at least this is what I have learnt.

> > >

> > > Sages did not use words in vain or context. I agree. But that

does

> > not

> > > mean they used the words to mean only one thing always.

> > >

> > > I never said that the meaning can be changed to suit our

> > convenience and

> > > I would request you not to attribute such sentiments to me.

> > >

> > > However I do say that word are used in different contexts to

mean

> > > different things, especially in Sanskrit texts of Jyotish. I

have,

> > just

> > > a few minutes back use of " Sva " with different meaning at

different

> > > places by Varaha Mihira to you. I hope you do not also attribute

> > the

> > > words that you attributed to me to the venerated Varaha Mihira.

> > >

> > > Take care,

> > > Chandrashekhar,.

> > >

> > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > >

> > > > Pls tell me what you mean by shadvargas of lagna.How do you

find

> > > > them.Do you go by ownership or placement

> > (Rashi/navamsha/dwadshamsha

> > > > etc).

> > > >

> > > > There are shlokas in Varahamihiras text which says ,Okarkshe

> > > > Purushamshakae.

> > > >

> > > > Which means in Ojarashi and Oja amsha.

> > > >

> > > > As per me sages will not use any words out of context.If he

wants

> > to

> > > > say amsha he will mention it.He will not use Rashi to mean as

> > amsha.

> > > >

> > > > Ojarkshe is Oja Rashi.Similarly Paparkshe is Papa Rashi.

> > > >

> > > > If you want to say as per our conveninece we can change the

> > meaning

> > > > of riksha/rashi/bhavana/bhavas as navamsha then i cannot say

> > > > anything.

> > > >

> > > > I can only respect your views.

> > > >

> > > > Respect

> > > > Pradeep

> > > >

> > <%40>

> > > > <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > >

> > > > > I will tell you why that happens. You begin with quoting

> > Parashara

> > > > and

> > > > > then give a sutra from Jaimini as being said by Parashara.

> > > > > Interpretation of sutras is not the easiest of the things,

more

> > so

> > > > with

> > > > > Jaimini's Upadesha sutras. That the sutras use KaTaPaYaadi

> > > > encryption

> > > > > makes them even more difficult to interpret. I am sure you

have

> > > > noticed

> > > > > this when Sreenadh interpreted the KaTaPaYaadi Varga in a

wrong

> > > > fashion.

> > > > >

> > > > > Then there is your insistence to let Sanskrit grammar give

a go

> > by

> > > > if

> > > > > that can make interpretation of a shloka or sutra fit your

> > > > proposition.

> > > > >

> > > > > Any of the Shodasha Vargas of a rasi can be referred to as

> > Varga,

> > > > but as

> > > > > far as I know in astrology, when one talks of Varga, without

> > > > qualifying

> > > > > it, or Amshas that generally refers to navamsha or

> > Dwadashaamsha.

> > > > >

> > > > > Another reason that we can not agree, or seem to agree, is

that

> > > > you are

> > > > > reluctant to call a navamsha by the nomenclature navamsha

rasi.

> > > > This

> > > > > makes it difficult to convey what I mean to say in English

as

> > that

> > > > is

> > > > > the language of the net and which both of us know. Now

since you

> > > > do not

> > > > > want to use the word Mesha navamsha as Mesha is a rashi and

by

> > > > your

> > > > > logic it can not be a navamsha, it becomes difficult to

convey

> > > > what I

> > > > > understand by the texts.

> > > > >

> > > > > I will like to draw your attention to the literal meaning

of the

> > > > word

> > > > > rasi. It means a heap and nothing more. In astrology since

it

> > > > > encompasses many stars that make up a nakshatra the 1/12th

> > > > division of

> > > > > the zodiac is called a Rasi. Or at least this is my

> > understanding

> > > > of the

> > > > > reason of using the word rasi for the 1/12th division of the

> > > > zodiac.

> > > > >

> > > > > I do not agree that by Chandra in Guru Varga it is meant

that

> > > > Varga of

> > > > > Chandra is being seen. To me we are talking about is whether

> > > > Chandra is

> > > > > falling in the Varga of Guru in which ever rasi he is

occupying.

> > > > So in

> > > > > Navamsha we see whether Chandra is occupying Pisces or

> > Sagittarius

> > > > > navamsha. I also do not agree that there are Vargas of

Chandra

> > or

> > > > of any

> > > > > planet for that matter. The 16 Vargas that Parashara talks

about

> > > > are

> > > > > that of a Rasi, beginning from the Rashi itself.

> > > > >

> > > > > If the Vargas are not owned by different planets, pray why

does

> > > > the sage

> > > > > tell us to see occupation of a friend, own etc. Varga to

assess

> > > > the

> > > > > strength of a planet in the Varga concerned?

> > > > >

> > > > > I have interacted with many astrologers of yesteryears (with

> > > > respect to

> > > > > my age group) and have never found them claiming the Vargas

to

> > be

> > > > of

> > > > > only lagna and planets.

> > > > >

> > > > > If you insist that sage Parashara gave the SU. 52.- " Tatra

> > > > bhrigwongaraka

> > > > > varge paradarikaha " , perhaps you are referring to some

edition

> > of

> > > > BPHS

> > > > > that I do not have. However I do have that in the umpteen

> > > > different

> > > > > texts on Jaimini that I do have in my library. And by the

way,

> > > > some

> > > > > scholars have interpreted that to mean 9th from Karakamsha

and

> > not

> > > > the 2nd.

> > > > >

> > > > > I do not agree that a graha can simultaneously occupy the

Varga

> > of

> > > > both

> > > > > Venus and Mars, simultaneously, as is being suggested

whether in

> > > > rasi or

> > > > > in any of the Vargas. It could only occupy one or the other.

> > > > >

> > > > > I have seen you arguing in favor of looking at the

Shadvargas of

> > > > the

> > > > > grahas Venus and Mars. I would like you to look at all the

six

> > > > charts

> > > > > whose Vargas together are referred as Shadvargas and try to

find

> > > > out

> > > > > whether they do indeed contain the 6 Vargas of Venus and 6

> > Vargas

> > > > or

> > > > > Mars. I am sure that you will find them to contain only 5

Vargas

> > > > each of

> > > > > the grahas. Once you confirm this by looking at the 6 Vargas

> > your

> > > > self,

> > > > > tell me how one can look at Shadvargas of Venus or Mars as

is

> > > > being

> > > > > suggested to be the interpretation of the sutra that you are

> > > > referring to.

> > > > >

> > > > > You may also be interested to know that Parashara talks of

AK

> > > > falling in

> > > > > the Varga of Chandra, Mars or Venus also having the roving

eye

> > on

> > > > others

> > > > > wives. So the combination of Venus and Mars being the only

one

> > > > giving

> > > > > the roving eye for other's wives, that you are advancing as

a

> > > > standalone

> > > > > principle, may not, necessarily, be the way the sage looked

at

> > > > their

> > > > > interpretation.

> > > > >

> > > > > Take care,

> > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Those were written by me.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > I am very dissappointed to see that ,inspite of repeating

> > numerus

> > > > > > times,you are unable to get what i am saying.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > I am not talking about rashis lorded by shukra or Mars

here.I

> > am

> > > > > > talking about the shadvargas vargas of mars and shukra.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Pls tell me what is the meaning of shadvargas or simply

Varga

> > of

> > > > > > lagna.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > It is the rashi in which lagna is placed.The navamshaka of

> > > > > > Lagna,Trimshamshaka of Lagna etc.Can we see any lordship

as

> > you

> > > > > > say.Lagna does not own any rashi.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Similarly when we say vargas of Venus -It means Rashi of

> > > > > > Venus,Hora,navamshaka,drekkana,trimshamshaka etc.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Shadvarga is never the rashi owned by a planet.Then Lagna

can

> > > > never

> > > > > > have shadvarga.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > On the other hand if we say,Chandra in Guru Varga - We

are not

> > > > seeing

> > > > > > the shadvarga of Guru,but that of chandra.Is chandra

placed in

> > > > Guru

> > > > > > Rashi?Is Chandra navamshaka in Guru Rashi.Is Chandra

> > > > Trimshamshaka in

> > > > > > Guru Rashi etc is what we check.If so chandras vargas

fall in

> > > > guru

> > > > > > rashis or we say chandra is in guruvargas.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > For the same reason schoplars of yesteryears always say

Vargas

> > > > are

> > > > > > for our natal Lagna and Planets.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > On the other hand you are taking them as owned by a

> > planet.Every

> > > > > > shadvarga that derive is like that.You may check this with

> > shri

> > > > > > Narasimha,how he is deriving it for his software.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > For the same reason Bhrigu and Angara can have Varga

together

> > in

> > > > the

> > > > > > Rashi which is 2nd from Karakamsha.Sage clearly talks

about

> > the

> > > > > > vargas from both.Moreover the next shloka is talking about

> > Mars

> > > > and

> > > > > > Venus together or aspecting the 2nd from karakamsha.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > On the other hand if we go by your explanation,we have to

opt

> > for

> > > > > > just one among shukra or Mars which is not proper.Their

Joint

> > > > > > influence creates sexual drive.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > I request you to kindly read this with care.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Rspect

> > > > > > Pradeep

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > <%40>

> > > > <%40>

> > > > > > <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> > > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > The below remarks are not from my mail at all. I do not

know

> > > > why

> > > > > > you

> > > > > > > think I would write that. I am sure you know that this

is

> > not

> > > > my

> > > > > > style

> > > > > > > of writing at all.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > " >From my experience -Mars + Venus creates certin

> > behaviour.I

> > > > feel

> > > > > > you

> > > > > > > too would have experienced this.Why are you going for

the

> > varga

> > > > > > owned by

> > > > > > > just one of them and that too without a planetary link

is

> > > > really

> > > > > > > worrying me.Shri Rath has translated so,i agree.But i

have

> > an

> > > > > > > inner feeling that Shri Rath will definitely correct

this

> > for

> > > > the

> > > > > > benfit

> > > > > > > of jyotish community. "

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > As to why I said they could not be having their Vargas

> > > > together in

> > > > > > one

> > > > > > > rasi or Bhava does not need any deeper explanation. If

you

> > are

> > > > > > looking

> > > > > > > at the 2nd from Karakamsha in the rasi chart, as you

think

> > is

> > > > > > right, you

> > > > > > > could not have both Mesha and Vrishabha or Tula and

> > Vrishchika

> > > > rasi

> > > > > > in

> > > > > > > 2nd from the Karakamsha, is that not so? Similarly if in

> > > > navamsha

> > > > > > chart

> > > > > > > the 2nd from Karakamsha is to be seen, the 2nd could be

not

> > > > both

> > > > > > navamshas.

> > > > > > > Take care,

> > > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > I though you meant so.Because in subsequent lines we

can

> > see

> > > > > > Swamsha

> > > > > > > > and Karakamsha being used for the same purpose.But if

you

> > > > think

> > > > > > > > there are other places where swamsha is used for say

> > > > > > Lagnamsha ,then

> > > > > > > > i can trust you if you can point me to that. This

should

> > not

> > > > be a

> > > > > > > > problem and in no way it will affect us.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Venus and Mars can ofcourse have their Vargas in a

single

> > > > rashi or

> > > > > > > > Bhava.Venus can have navamsha there,Mars can have

navamsha

> > > > > > > > there,Venus can have Trimshamsha there,Mars can have

> > > > Trimshamsha

> > > > > > > > there,they both can have drekkana there etc etc.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Thus sage is talking about Bhrigu and Angara both (as

you

> > > > have

> > > > > > > > identified gramattically) having varga there and it is

> > very

> > > > much

> > > > > > > > possible.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > If you note the next line -Sage is talking about both

> > Venus

> > > > and

> > > > > > Mars

> > > > > > > > joining or aspecting the 2nd from Karakamsha.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >From my experience -Mars + Venus creates certin

> > behaviour.I

> > > > feel

> > > > > > you

> > > > > > > > too would have experienced this.Why are you going for

the

> > > > varga

> > > > > > > > owned by just one of them and that too without a

planetary

> > > > link is

> > > > > > > > really worrying me.Shri Rath has translated so,i

> > agree.But i

> > > > have

> > > > > > an

> > > > > > > > inner feeling that Shri Rath will definitely correct

this

> > > > for the

> > > > > > > > benfit of jyotish community.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > I am surprised as to why you say so.That they cannot

have

> > > > > > together.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Respect

> > > > > > > > Pardeep

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > <%40>

> > > > <%40>

> > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > <%40>,

Chandrashekhar

> > > > > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > I have never said that I do not think that Swamsha

and

> > > > > > Karakamsha

> > > > > > > > are

> > > > > > > > > different where the context demands so. At the same

> > time I

> > > > do

> > > > > > not

> > > > > > > > think

> > > > > > > > > grammar can be put to rest to in the name of

context,

> > > > without

> > > > > > some

> > > > > > > > sound

> > > > > > > > > reason.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Of course if you want contextual translation only,

then

> > > > one can

> > > > > > > > > certainly say that the " Meshadi raashige swaamshe "

can

> > > > always be

> > > > > > > > > translated as " Falling in Mesha navamsha in Mesha

rasi

> > > > etc. " .

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > By the way " Tatra Bhrigwonkaraka Varge " , that you

> > > > mention, does

> > > > > > > > not

> > > > > > > > > mean varga of both Venus and mars, but of varga of

> > Venus OR

> > > > > > Mars,

> > > > > > > > due to

> > > > > > > > > the grammar only. varga of two planets can not fall

in

> > one

> > > > > > > > > bhava/amsha/rasi whether in rasi or Navamsha or any

> > other

> > > > chart.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Take care,

> > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Grammatically,what you are saying is also true.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > But Jyotish defintions play a preceding role in

> > choosing

> > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > grammatical meaning.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > For example one meaning of labhe ,Swamshe etc is

in

> > the

> > > > 11th

> > > > > > in

> > > > > > > > > > swamsha etc.

> > > > > > > > > > But if we go by that we will definitely translate

> > > > swamshe in

> > > > > > > > meshadi

> > > > > > > > > > rashige as ''in Swamsha'',thereby translating it

as

> > one

> > > > full

> > > > > > > > > > chart.This as you too agree,then cannot pass the

> > test,of

> > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > subsequent shlokas.I understand gladly that you

too

> > > > agree that

> > > > > > > > > > swamsha and karakamsha are the same.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > So the context decides plural/singular and not

> > > > necessarily

> > > > > > > > the ''E''

> > > > > > > > > > as you have rightly mentioned.

> > > > > > > > > > But in essence what i want to say is ''E'' does

not

> > > > always

> > > > > > > > mean ''in

> > > > > > > > > > the'' as you have interpreted.Labheshe is an

> > > > example.Karake

> > > > > > is an

> > > > > > > > > > example.

> > > > > > > > > > Thus it can very well mean Varga of Shukra and

Mars-

> > > > which can

> > > > > > > > then be

> > > > > > > > > > six vargas or one varga.(Not lordship)

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Tatra Bhrigwonkaraka Varge -

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Tatra -(There) In the second from Karakamsha

> > > > > > > > > > Varga or Vargas of Venus and Mars

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Now why should we need two qualifiesrs for

destination

> > (1)

> > > > In

> > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > 2nd

> > > > > > > > > > from karakamsha 2)in the vargas of?)-if we had

another

> > > > planet

> > > > > > > > then

> > > > > > > > > > your interpretation is right.That planet will

answer

> > the

> > > > > > > > question -

> > > > > > > > > > who is in the vargas of ?

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Similarly - Swamshad dhane Shukrar

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Swamshad dhane is already pointing to destination-

why

> > > > should

> > > > > > we

> > > > > > > > need

> > > > > > > > > > another ''in the'' vargas of.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > On the other hand if we say in the 2nd from

> > karakamsha if

> > > > > > varga

> > > > > > > > of

> > > > > > > > > > mars and venus are present,it fits in

> > > > grammatically.Moreover

> > > > > > as

> > > > > > > > i had

> > > > > > > > > > mentioned rashi lordship without planetary link

> > > > > > (placement/amsha

> > > > > > > > etc)

> > > > > > > > > > is too general.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Respect

> > > > > > > > > > Pradeep

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > <%40>

> > > > <%40>

> > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > <%40>,

> > Chandrashekhar

> > > > > > > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > I may be wrong but the " E " by itself does not

point

> > to

> > > > > > plural.

> > > > > > > > It

> > > > > > > > > > is the

> > > > > > > > > > > word Shadvarga indicating 6 Vargas that is one

group

> > > > > > (though it

> > > > > > > > > > contains

> > > > > > > > > > > more than one unit) and so " Varge " , the

singular is

> > > > used

> > > > > > with

> > > > > > > > that.

> > > > > > > > > > The

> > > > > > > > > > > " E " means " in " . I would be happy if an example

> > > > of " Varge "

> > > > > > being

> > > > > > > > > > plural

> > > > > > > > > > > can be given.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > I do not at all think that Vargaka or Varga is

> > > > singular and

> > > > > > > > Vargake

> > > > > > > > > > or

> > > > > > > > > > > Varge is plural, at all. Both the manner of

using

> > the

> > > > word

> > > > > > only

> > > > > > > > > > > indicates singular. it is no use projecting

what is

> > > > clearly

> > > > > > > > Saptami

> > > > > > > > > > > vibhakti and singular as being a plural word. If

> > Varga

> > > > is

> > > > > > to be

> > > > > > > > > > used as

> > > > > > > > > > > dvivachana it may become " VargyoH " or " VargeSu "

(for

> > > > > > > > bahuvachan)

> > > > > > > > > > and not

> > > > > > > > > > > Varge. Perhaps some Sanskrit scholar on the list

> > would

> > > > like

> > > > > > to

> > > > > > > > > > comment

> > > > > > > > > > > on this.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > So, much as I would like it to resolve, the

issue

> > > > remains

> > > > > > > > > > unresolved.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > I will give you a relevant example to explain

how

> > > > VarGE

> > > > > > can

> > > > > > > > be

> > > > > > > > > > used in

> > > > > > > > > > > > context of plural.

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > Lagna Shad-VargaKE - Is pointing to all

vargas -

> > > > > > Plural.You

> > > > > > > > may

> > > > > > > > > > note

> > > > > > > > > > > > that the grammatical ending is with ''E''

showing

> > > > plurals

> > > > > > > > too can

> > > > > > > > > > be

> > > > > > > > > > > > expressed with such an ending.

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > Now from Vrishamsha''Ka'' and Tulamsha

example we

> > can

> > > > > > > > conclude

> > > > > > > > > > that

> > > > > > > > > > > > VargaKA and VarGA can be used for the same

> > purpose in

> > > > > > > > Ekavachan or

> > > > > > > > > > > > singular form and VargaKE and VarGE can be

used

> > for

> > > > > > > > Bahuvachan or

> > > > > > > > > > > > Plural form.

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > I hope this may help us in resolving our

issue.

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > Respect

> > > > > > > > > > > > Pradeep

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > >

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

----

> > ---

> > > > -----

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

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database:

269.10.0/886 -

> > > > Release

> > > > > > > > Date:

> > > > > > > > > > 7/4/2007 1:40 PM

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been

> > removed]

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

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

----

> > ---

> > > > -

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

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.10.0/886 -

> > Release

> > > > > > Date:

> > > > > > > > 7/4/2007 1:40 PM

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been

removed]

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

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

----

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

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.10.0/886 -

Release

> > > > Date:

> > > > > > 7/4/2007 1:40 PM

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

[Guest guest]

Dear Pradeep,

 

I see your point of view. anyway even within shadvargas we look for the

degree of a planet falling within a certain span of degrees and not one

particular bindu.

 

I agree that rashi is a Varga and my question is if one can look at

aspects in one Varga why not in other Vargas? I am sure you know that

personally I use navamsha to find only the strength of grahas, but there

is no reason to rule out aspects in Navamshas or other charts totally.

One of the raj yogas mentioned by Parashara talks of aspect of shubha

grahas on the karakamsha and Lagnamsha which should also be tenanted by

Shubha grahas, leaving no doubt as to where the aspects are to be seen.

And for the record the translation to that effect is by an eminent

astrologer who was Professor of astrology in Banaras Hindu University.

 

Take care,

Chandrashekhar.

 

 

vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

>

> Dear Chandrashekhar ji

>

> Lagna as a bindu was mentioned for driving home the shadvarga

> calculations,if any members were having doubts.For shadvarga

> calculation of planets too we need the bindu or degree of a planet

> within a rashi, as you are aware.

>

> We have to look at Rashis.This is so because Rashi (one 30 degree

> sector ) is the first varga.As this Varga is synonymous with Bhava

> houses are analysed w.r to Rashis.

>

> Respect

> Pradeep

>

>

> <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> <chandrashekhar46 wrote:

> >

> > Dear Pradeep,

> >

> > If lagna is a bindu a you propose, and nothing more, then how can

> it

> > indicate an entire rasi? Now if this is correct, and technically

> it is,

> > then by your reckoning there is no need to look at rasis too. Is

> that

> > what you mean to say?

> >

> > If shadvargas are not related to the portion falling in the lagna

> rasis,

> > which holds the degree of lagna Madhya, then it appears we must ask

> the

> > sages to redefine Vargas. I doubt they need our advise.

> >

> > Take care,

> > Chandrashekhar.

> >

> > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > >

> > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > >

> > > There was a purpose.I just wanted to explain it to the members if

> > > some of them are not sure on what shadvarga of lagna is and how it

> > > is calculated.

> > >

> > > As you have said Vargas are divisions of a rashi.But shadvargas of

> > > Lagna is not the Vargas falling in Lagna.Here lagna is not a

> > > rashi,but a bindu.Vargas are found from a degree.The degree of a

> > > planet or degree of lagna.

> > >

> > > As you may know we do notneed six charts to dtermine shadvargas of

> > > lagna.All we need is the degree of lagna and the rashi rising.

> > >

> > > Let us take an example.Lagna is at 11 degrees in dhanu.

> > >

> > > Let us find the shadvargas of Lagna with th help of rising rashi

> and

> > > degree.

> > >

> > > 1st Varga - The Rashi in which Lagna bindu is falling - Dhanu

> > > 2nd Varga - The Hora in which Lagna bindu is falling - As 11

> degrees

> > > falls in the 1st half of dhanu - Surya Hora

> > > 3rd Varga - The drekkana in which Lagna bindu is falling - As 11

> > > degrees falls in the 2nd 1/3rd of dhanu - Drekkana is Mesha.

> > > 4th Varga - As 11 degrees falls in the 3rd saptamsha ,Lagna

> saptamsha

> > > is Kumbha.

> > >

> > > Similraly - Lagna navamsha is Karka,Lagna Trimshamsha is dhanu.

> > >

> > > Thus the purpose of whole exercise was to say that when we say

> > > shadvargas of Lagna or Mars,it does not mean the rashis owned by

> > > Lagna or Mars.But the Rashis on towhich they are placed,having

> > > hora,drekkana etc etc.

> > >

> > > Vargas of Mars in the 2nd Rashi from karakamsha too is no

> differet.

> > >

> > > There are many meanings,that is why Rashi is called as

> > > Kshethra /Riksha /havana etc.But i don't think sage will use the

> > > saword to represent something belonging to same class.

> > >

> > > For example sage will not use ''sva'' to mean 2nd as well as

> 3rd.Then

> > > we cannot interpret.

> > >

> > > Similarly Rashi and navamsha will not be represented using the

> same

> > > word.Rashi/Kshethra/Riksha/Bhvana/Lagna etc are synonyms an ifthey

> > > are used for navamsha then what is the whole purpose behind

> defintion.

> > >

> > > On the other hand sva was used for iems from different classes.

> > >

> > > This wasin mind while making such a statement.I will try my best

> to

> > > polish my style of writing.I accept my limitations in writing.

> > >

> > > Respect

> > > Pradeep

> > >

> > >

> <%40>

> > > <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > >

> > > > I have not understood your question or the intent behind that.

> The

> > > > Vargas are divisions, within a rasi, ruled by different grahas.

> So

> > > if

> > > > one wants t look at Vargas falling in lagna the shad Vargas will

> > > mean

> > > > the rasi equivalent occurring at lagna position in the 6

> divisional

> > > > charts of Rashi, Hora, Dreshkana, Navamsha, Dwaadashamsha and

> > > > Trimshamsha. Or at least this is what I have learnt.

> > > >

> > > > Sages did not use words in vain or context. I agree. But that

> does

> > > not

> > > > mean they used the words to mean only one thing always.

> > > >

> > > > I never said that the meaning can be changed to suit our

> > > convenience and

> > > > I would request you not to attribute such sentiments to me.

> > > >

> > > > However I do say that word are used in different contexts to

> mean

> > > > different things, especially in Sanskrit texts of Jyotish. I

> have,

> > > just

> > > > a few minutes back use of " Sva " with different meaning at

> different

> > > > places by Varaha Mihira to you. I hope you do not also attribute

> > > the

> > > > words that you attributed to me to the venerated Varaha Mihira.

> > > >

> > > > Take care,

> > > > Chandrashekhar,.

> > > >

> > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > >

> > > > > Pls tell me what you mean by shadvargas of lagna.How do you

> find

> > > > > them.Do you go by ownership or placement

> > > (Rashi/navamsha/dwadshamsha

> > > > > etc).

> > > > >

> > > > > There are shlokas in Varahamihiras text which says ,Okarkshe

> > > > > Purushamshakae.

> > > > >

> > > > > Which means in Ojarashi and Oja amsha.

> > > > >

> > > > > As per me sages will not use any words out of context.If he

> wants

> > > to

> > > > > say amsha he will mention it.He will not use Rashi to mean as

> > > amsha.

> > > > >

> > > > > Ojarkshe is Oja Rashi.Similarly Paparkshe is Papa Rashi.

> > > > >

> > > > > If you want to say as per our conveninece we can change the

> > > meaning

> > > > > of riksha/rashi/bhavana/bhavas as navamsha then i cannot say

> > > > > anything.

> > > > >

> > > > > I can only respect your views.

> > > > >

> > > > > Respect

> > > > > Pradeep

> > > > >

> <%40>

> > > <%40>

> > > > > <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > > >

> > > > > > I will tell you why that happens. You begin with quoting

> > > Parashara

> > > > > and

> > > > > > then give a sutra from Jaimini as being said by Parashara.

> > > > > > Interpretation of sutras is not the easiest of the things,

> more

> > > so

> > > > > with

> > > > > > Jaimini's Upadesha sutras. That the sutras use KaTaPaYaadi

> > > > > encryption

> > > > > > makes them even more difficult to interpret. I am sure you

> have

> > > > > noticed

> > > > > > this when Sreenadh interpreted the KaTaPaYaadi Varga in a

> wrong

> > > > > fashion.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Then there is your insistence to let Sanskrit grammar give

> a go

> > > by

> > > > > if

> > > > > > that can make interpretation of a shloka or sutra fit your

> > > > > proposition.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Any of the Shodasha Vargas of a rasi can be referred to as

> > > Varga,

> > > > > but as

> > > > > > far as I know in astrology, when one talks of Varga, without

> > > > > qualifying

> > > > > > it, or Amshas that generally refers to navamsha or

> > > Dwadashaamsha.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Another reason that we can not agree, or seem to agree, is

> that

> > > > > you are

> > > > > > reluctant to call a navamsha by the nomenclature navamsha

> rasi.

> > > > > This

> > > > > > makes it difficult to convey what I mean to say in English

> as

> > > that

> > > > > is

> > > > > > the language of the net and which both of us know. Now

> since you

> > > > > do not

> > > > > > want to use the word Mesha navamsha as Mesha is a rashi and

> by

> > > > > your

> > > > > > logic it can not be a navamsha, it becomes difficult to

> convey

> > > > > what I

> > > > > > understand by the texts.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > I will like to draw your attention to the literal meaning

> of the

> > > > > word

> > > > > > rasi. It means a heap and nothing more. In astrology since

> it

> > > > > > encompasses many stars that make up a nakshatra the 1/12th

> > > > > division of

> > > > > > the zodiac is called a Rasi. Or at least this is my

> > > understanding

> > > > > of the

> > > > > > reason of using the word rasi for the 1/12th division of the

> > > > > zodiac.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > I do not agree that by Chandra in Guru Varga it is meant

> that

> > > > > Varga of

> > > > > > Chandra is being seen. To me we are talking about is whether

> > > > > Chandra is

> > > > > > falling in the Varga of Guru in which ever rasi he is

> occupying.

> > > > > So in

> > > > > > Navamsha we see whether Chandra is occupying Pisces or

> > > Sagittarius

> > > > > > navamsha. I also do not agree that there are Vargas of

> Chandra

> > > or

> > > > > of any

> > > > > > planet for that matter. The 16 Vargas that Parashara talks

> about

> > > > > are

> > > > > > that of a Rasi, beginning from the Rashi itself.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > If the Vargas are not owned by different planets, pray why

> does

> > > > > the sage

> > > > > > tell us to see occupation of a friend, own etc. Varga to

> assess

> > > > > the

> > > > > > strength of a planet in the Varga concerned?

> > > > > >

> > > > > > I have interacted with many astrologers of yesteryears (with

> > > > > respect to

> > > > > > my age group) and have never found them claiming the Vargas

> to

> > > be

> > > > > of

> > > > > > only lagna and planets.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > If you insist that sage Parashara gave the SU. 52.- " Tatra

> > > > > bhrigwongaraka

> > > > > > varge paradarikaha " , perhaps you are referring to some

> edition

> > > of

> > > > > BPHS

> > > > > > that I do not have. However I do have that in the umpteen

> > > > > different

> > > > > > texts on Jaimini that I do have in my library. And by the

> way,

> > > > > some

> > > > > > scholars have interpreted that to mean 9th from Karakamsha

> and

> > > not

> > > > > the 2nd.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > I do not agree that a graha can simultaneously occupy the

> Varga

> > > of

> > > > > both

> > > > > > Venus and Mars, simultaneously, as is being suggested

> whether in

> > > > > rasi or

> > > > > > in any of the Vargas. It could only occupy one or the other.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > I have seen you arguing in favor of looking at the

> Shadvargas of

> > > > > the

> > > > > > grahas Venus and Mars. I would like you to look at all the

> six

> > > > > charts

> > > > > > whose Vargas together are referred as Shadvargas and try to

> find

> > > > > out

> > > > > > whether they do indeed contain the 6 Vargas of Venus and 6

> > > Vargas

> > > > > or

> > > > > > Mars. I am sure that you will find them to contain only 5

> Vargas

> > > > > each of

> > > > > > the grahas. Once you confirm this by looking at the 6 Vargas

> > > your

> > > > > self,

> > > > > > tell me how one can look at Shadvargas of Venus or Mars as

> is

> > > > > being

> > > > > > suggested to be the interpretation of the sutra that you are

> > > > > referring to.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > You may also be interested to know that Parashara talks of

> AK

> > > > > falling in

> > > > > > the Varga of Chandra, Mars or Venus also having the roving

> eye

> > > on

> > > > > others

> > > > > > wives. So the combination of Venus and Mars being the only

> one

> > > > > giving

> > > > > > the roving eye for other's wives, that you are advancing as

> a

> > > > > standalone

> > > > > > principle, may not, necessarily, be the way the sage looked

> at

> > > > > their

> > > > > > interpretation.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Take care,

> > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Those were written by me.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > I am very dissappointed to see that ,inspite of repeating

> > > numerus

> > > > > > > times,you are unable to get what i am saying.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > I am not talking about rashis lorded by shukra or Mars

> here.I

> > > am

> > > > > > > talking about the shadvargas vargas of mars and shukra.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Pls tell me what is the meaning of shadvargas or simply

> Varga

> > > of

> > > > > > > lagna.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > It is the rashi in which lagna is placed.The navamshaka of

> > > > > > > Lagna,Trimshamshaka of Lagna etc.Can we see any lordship

> as

> > > you

> > > > > > > say.Lagna does not own any rashi.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Similarly when we say vargas of Venus -It means Rashi of

> > > > > > > Venus,Hora,navamshaka,drekkana,trimshamshaka etc.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Shadvarga is never the rashi owned by a planet.Then Lagna

> can

> > > > > never

> > > > > > > have shadvarga.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > On the other hand if we say,Chandra in Guru Varga - We

> are not

> > > > > seeing

> > > > > > > the shadvarga of Guru,but that of chandra.Is chandra

> placed in

> > > > > Guru

> > > > > > > Rashi?Is Chandra navamshaka in Guru Rashi.Is Chandra

> > > > > Trimshamshaka in

> > > > > > > Guru Rashi etc is what we check.If so chandras vargas

> fall in

> > > > > guru

> > > > > > > rashis or we say chandra is in guruvargas.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > For the same reason schoplars of yesteryears always say

> Vargas

> > > > > are

> > > > > > > for our natal Lagna and Planets.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > On the other hand you are taking them as owned by a

> > > planet.Every

> > > > > > > shadvarga that derive is like that.You may check this with

> > > shri

> > > > > > > Narasimha,how he is deriving it for his software.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > For the same reason Bhrigu and Angara can have Varga

> together

> > > in

> > > > > the

> > > > > > > Rashi which is 2nd from Karakamsha.Sage clearly talks

> about

> > > the

> > > > > > > vargas from both.Moreover the next shloka is talking about

> > > Mars

> > > > > and

> > > > > > > Venus together or aspecting the 2nd from karakamsha.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > On the other hand if we go by your explanation,we have to

> opt

> > > for

> > > > > > > just one among shukra or Mars which is not proper.Their

> Joint

> > > > > > > influence creates sexual drive.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > I request you to kindly read this with care.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Rspect

> > > > > > > Pradeep

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> <%40>

> > > <%40>

> > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> > > > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > The below remarks are not from my mail at all. I do not

> know

> > > > > why

> > > > > > > you

> > > > > > > > think I would write that. I am sure you know that this

> is

> > > not

> > > > > my

> > > > > > > style

> > > > > > > > of writing at all.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > " >From my experience -Mars + Venus creates certin

> > > behaviour.I

> > > > > feel

> > > > > > > you

> > > > > > > > too would have experienced this.Why are you going for

> the

> > > varga

> > > > > > > owned by

> > > > > > > > just one of them and that too without a planetary link

> is

> > > > > really

> > > > > > > > worrying me.Shri Rath has translated so,i agree.But i

> have

> > > an

> > > > > > > > inner feeling that Shri Rath will definitely correct

> this

> > > for

> > > > > the

> > > > > > > benfit

> > > > > > > > of jyotish community. "

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > As to why I said they could not be having their Vargas

> > > > > together in

> > > > > > > one

> > > > > > > > rasi or Bhava does not need any deeper explanation. If

> you

> > > are

> > > > > > > looking

> > > > > > > > at the 2nd from Karakamsha in the rasi chart, as you

> think

> > > is

> > > > > > > right, you

> > > > > > > > could not have both Mesha and Vrishabha or Tula and

> > > Vrishchika

> > > > > rasi

> > > > > > > in

> > > > > > > > 2nd from the Karakamsha, is that not so? Similarly if in

> > > > > navamsha

> > > > > > > chart

> > > > > > > > the 2nd from Karakamsha is to be seen, the 2nd could be

> not

> > > > > both

> > > > > > > navamshas.

> > > > > > > > Take care,

> > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > I though you meant so.Because in subsequent lines we

> can

> > > see

> > > > > > > Swamsha

> > > > > > > > > and Karakamsha being used for the same purpose.But if

> you

> > > > > think

> > > > > > > > > there are other places where swamsha is used for say

> > > > > > > Lagnamsha ,then

> > > > > > > > > i can trust you if you can point me to that. This

> should

> > > not

> > > > > be a

> > > > > > > > > problem and in no way it will affect us.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Venus and Mars can ofcourse have their Vargas in a

> single

> > > > > rashi or

> > > > > > > > > Bhava.Venus can have navamsha there,Mars can have

> navamsha

> > > > > > > > > there,Venus can have Trimshamsha there,Mars can have

> > > > > Trimshamsha

> > > > > > > > > there,they both can have drekkana there etc etc.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Thus sage is talking about Bhrigu and Angara both (as

> you

> > > > > have

> > > > > > > > > identified gramattically) having varga there and it is

> > > very

> > > > > much

> > > > > > > > > possible.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > If you note the next line -Sage is talking about both

> > > Venus

> > > > > and

> > > > > > > Mars

> > > > > > > > > joining or aspecting the 2nd from Karakamsha.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >From my experience -Mars + Venus creates certin

> > > behaviour.I

> > > > > feel

> > > > > > > you

> > > > > > > > > too would have experienced this.Why are you going for

> the

> > > > > varga

> > > > > > > > > owned by just one of them and that too without a

> planetary

> > > > > link is

> > > > > > > > > really worrying me.Shri Rath has translated so,i

> > > agree.But i

> > > > > have

> > > > > > > an

> > > > > > > > > inner feeling that Shri Rath will definitely correct

> this

> > > > > for the

> > > > > > > > > benfit of jyotish community.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > I am surprised as to why you say so.That they cannot

> have

> > > > > > > together.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Respect

> > > > > > > > > Pardeep

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> <%40>

> > > <%40>

> > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > <%40>,

> Chandrashekhar

> > > > > > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > I have never said that I do not think that Swamsha

> and

> > > > > > > Karakamsha

> > > > > > > > > are

> > > > > > > > > > different where the context demands so. At the same

> > > time I

> > > > > do

> > > > > > > not

> > > > > > > > > think

> > > > > > > > > > grammar can be put to rest to in the name of

> context,

> > > > > without

> > > > > > > some

> > > > > > > > > sound

> > > > > > > > > > reason.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Of course if you want contextual translation only,

> then

> > > > > one can

> > > > > > > > > > certainly say that the " Meshadi raashige swaamshe "

> can

> > > > > always be

> > > > > > > > > > translated as " Falling in Mesha navamsha in Mesha

> rasi

> > > > > etc. " .

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > By the way " Tatra Bhrigwonkaraka Varge " , that you

> > > > > mention, does

> > > > > > > > > not

> > > > > > > > > > mean varga of both Venus and mars, but of varga of

> > > Venus OR

> > > > > > > Mars,

> > > > > > > > > due to

> > > > > > > > > > the grammar only. varga of two planets can not fall

> in

> > > one

> > > > > > > > > > bhava/amsha/rasi whether in rasi or Navamsha or any

> > > other

> > > > > chart.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Take care,

> > > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Grammatically,what you are saying is also true.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > But Jyotish defintions play a preceding role in

> > > choosing

> > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > grammatical meaning.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > For example one meaning of labhe ,Swamshe etc is

> in

> > > the

> > > > > 11th

> > > > > > > in

> > > > > > > > > > > swamsha etc.

> > > > > > > > > > > But if we go by that we will definitely translate

> > > > > swamshe in

> > > > > > > > > meshadi

> > > > > > > > > > > rashige as ''in Swamsha'',thereby translating it

> as

> > > one

> > > > > full

> > > > > > > > > > > chart.This as you too agree,then cannot pass the

> > > test,of

> > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > subsequent shlokas.I understand gladly that you

> too

> > > > > agree that

> > > > > > > > > > > swamsha and karakamsha are the same.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > So the context decides plural/singular and not

> > > > > necessarily

> > > > > > > > > the ''E''

> > > > > > > > > > > as you have rightly mentioned.

> > > > > > > > > > > But in essence what i want to say is ''E'' does

> not

> > > > > always

> > > > > > > > > mean ''in

> > > > > > > > > > > the'' as you have interpreted.Labheshe is an

> > > > > example.Karake

> > > > > > > is an

> > > > > > > > > > > example.

> > > > > > > > > > > Thus it can very well mean Varga of Shukra and

> Mars-

> > > > > which can

> > > > > > > > > then be

> > > > > > > > > > > six vargas or one varga.(Not lordship)

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Tatra Bhrigwonkaraka Varge -

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Tatra -(There) In the second from Karakamsha

> > > > > > > > > > > Varga or Vargas of Venus and Mars

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Now why should we need two qualifiesrs for

> destination

> > > (1)

> > > > > In

> > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > 2nd

> > > > > > > > > > > from karakamsha 2)in the vargas of?)-if we had

> another

> > > > > planet

> > > > > > > > > then

> > > > > > > > > > > your interpretation is right.That planet will

> answer

> > > the

> > > > > > > > > question -

> > > > > > > > > > > who is in the vargas of ?

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Similarly - Swamshad dhane Shukrar

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Swamshad dhane is already pointing to destination-

> why

> > > > > should

> > > > > > > we

> > > > > > > > > need

> > > > > > > > > > > another ''in the'' vargas of.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > On the other hand if we say in the 2nd from

> > > karakamsha if

> > > > > > > varga

> > > > > > > > > of

> > > > > > > > > > > mars and venus are present,it fits in

> > > > > grammatically.Moreover

> > > > > > > as

> > > > > > > > > i had

> > > > > > > > > > > mentioned rashi lordship without planetary link

> > > > > > > (placement/amsha

> > > > > > > > > etc)

> > > > > > > > > > > is too general.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Respect

> > > > > > > > > > > Pradeep

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> <%40>

> > > <%40>

> > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > <%40>,

> > > Chandrashekhar

> > > > > > > > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > I may be wrong but the " E " by itself does not

> point

> > > to

> > > > > > > plural.

> > > > > > > > > It

> > > > > > > > > > > is the

> > > > > > > > > > > > word Shadvarga indicating 6 Vargas that is one

> group

> > > > > > > (though it

> > > > > > > > > > > contains

> > > > > > > > > > > > more than one unit) and so " Varge " , the

> singular is

> > > > > used

> > > > > > > with

> > > > > > > > > that.

> > > > > > > > > > > The

> > > > > > > > > > > > " E " means " in " . I would be happy if an example

> > > > > of " Varge "

> > > > > > > being

> > > > > > > > > > > plural

> > > > > > > > > > > > can be given.

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > I do not at all think that Vargaka or Varga is

> > > > > singular and

> > > > > > > > > Vargake

> > > > > > > > > > > or

> > > > > > > > > > > > Varge is plural, at all. Both the manner of

> using

> > > the

> > > > > word

> > > > > > > only

> > > > > > > > > > > > indicates singular. it is no use projecting

> what is

> > > > > clearly

> > > > > > > > > Saptami

> > > > > > > > > > > > vibhakti and singular as being a plural word. If

> > > Varga

> > > > > is

> > > > > > > to be

> > > > > > > > > > > used as

> > > > > > > > > > > > dvivachana it may become " VargyoH " or " VargeSu "

> (for

> > > > > > > > > bahuvachan)

> > > > > > > > > > > and not

> > > > > > > > > > > > Varge. Perhaps some Sanskrit scholar on the list

> > > would

> > > > > like

> > > > > > > to

> > > > > > > > > > > comment

> > > > > > > > > > > > on this.

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > So, much as I would like it to resolve, the

> issue

> > > > > remains

> > > > > > > > > > > unresolved.

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > I will give you a relevant example to explain

> how

> > > > > VarGE

> > > > > > > can

> > > > > > > > > be

> > > > > > > > > > > used in

> > > > > > > > > > > > > context of plural.

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Lagna Shad-VargaKE - Is pointing to all

> vargas -

> > > > > > > Plural.You

> > > > > > > > > may

> > > > > > > > > > > note

> > > > > > > > > > > > > that the grammatical ending is with ''E''

> showing

> > > > > plurals

> > > > > > > > > too can

> > > > > > > > > > > be

> > > > > > > > > > > > > expressed with such an ending.

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Now from Vrishamsha''Ka'' and Tulamsha

> example we

> > > can

> > > > > > > > > conclude

> > > > > > > > > > > that

> > > > > > > > > > > > > VargaKA and VarGA can be used for the same

> > > purpose in

> > > > > > > > > Ekavachan or

> > > > > > > > > > > > > singular form and VargaKE and VarGE can be

> used

> > > for

> > > > > > > > > Bahuvachan or

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Plural form.

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > I hope this may help us in resolving our

> issue.

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Respect

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Pradeep

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

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

> ----

> > > ---

> > > > > -----

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

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database:

> 269.10.0/886 -

> > > > > Release

> > > > > > > > > Date:

> > > > > > > > > > > 7/4/2007 1:40 PM

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been

> > > removed]

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

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

> ----

> > > ---

> > > > > -

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

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.10.0/886 -

> > > Release

> > > > > > > Date:

> > > > > > > > > 7/4/2007 1:40 PM

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been

> removed]

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

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

> ----

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

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.10.0/886 -

> Release

> > > > > Date:

> > > > > > > 7/4/2007 1:40 PM

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

[Guest guest]

Drear Chandrasekharji,Pradeepji and other scholars,

 

Please, I could not understand how the karakmsha

has to be seen from the Rashi chart, and not

from the Navamsha chart. I thought all

the wonderful effects of planets placed in various

positions from the Karakamsha including Kaivalya,

are to be judged from the Karakamsha postion

in Navamsha.

 

That means now my Kaivalya is denied to me,

as per this new learning.Can some reference wih respect

to the ancient shlokas or the ancient authors be

given to me for checking this, as this involves my

own chart, and have personal interest in learning

the actual method, but with pramana.

 

regards,

Bhaskar.

 

 

 

 

, Chandrashekhar

<chandrashekhar46 wrote:

>

> Dear Pradeep,

>

> I see your point of view. anyway even within shadvargas we look for the

> degree of a planet falling within a certain span of degrees and not one

> particular bindu.

>

> I agree that rashi is a Varga and my question is if one can look at

> aspects in one Varga why not in other Vargas? I am sure you know that

> personally I use navamsha to find only the strength of grahas, but

there

> is no reason to rule out aspects in Navamshas or other charts totally.

> One of the raj yogas mentioned by Parashara talks of aspect of shubha

> grahas on the karakamsha and Lagnamsha which should also be tenanted by

> Shubha grahas, leaving no doubt as to where the aspects are to be seen.

> And for the record the translation to that effect is by an eminent

> astrologer who was Professor of astrology in Banaras Hindu University.

>

> Take care,

> Chandrashekhar.

>

>

> vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> >

> > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> >

> > Lagna as a bindu was mentioned for driving home the shadvarga

> > calculations,if any members were having doubts.For shadvarga

> > calculation of planets too we need the bindu or degree of a planet

> > within a rashi, as you are aware.

> >

> > We have to look at Rashis.This is so because Rashi (one 30 degree

> > sector ) is the first varga.As this Varga is synonymous with Bhava

> > houses are analysed w.r to Rashis.

> >

> > Respect

> > Pradeep

> >

> >

> > <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > >

> > > Dear Pradeep,

> > >

> > > If lagna is a bindu a you propose, and nothing more, then how can

> > it

> > > indicate an entire rasi? Now if this is correct, and technically

> > it is,

> > > then by your reckoning there is no need to look at rasis too. Is

> > that

> > > what you mean to say?

> > >

> > > If shadvargas are not related to the portion falling in the lagna

> > rasis,

> > > which holds the degree of lagna Madhya, then it appears we must ask

> > the

> > > sages to redefine Vargas. I doubt they need our advise.

> > >

> > > Take care,

> > > Chandrashekhar.

> > >

> > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > >

> > > > There was a purpose.I just wanted to explain it to the members if

> > > > some of them are not sure on what shadvarga of lagna is and how it

> > > > is calculated.

> > > >

> > > > As you have said Vargas are divisions of a rashi.But shadvargas of

> > > > Lagna is not the Vargas falling in Lagna.Here lagna is not a

> > > > rashi,but a bindu.Vargas are found from a degree.The degree of a

> > > > planet or degree of lagna.

> > > >

> > > > As you may know we do notneed six charts to dtermine shadvargas of

> > > > lagna.All we need is the degree of lagna and the rashi rising.

> > > >

> > > > Let us take an example.Lagna is at 11 degrees in dhanu.

> > > >

> > > > Let us find the shadvargas of Lagna with th help of rising rashi

> > and

> > > > degree.

> > > >

> > > > 1st Varga - The Rashi in which Lagna bindu is falling - Dhanu

> > > > 2nd Varga - The Hora in which Lagna bindu is falling - As 11

> > degrees

> > > > falls in the 1st half of dhanu - Surya Hora

> > > > 3rd Varga - The drekkana in which Lagna bindu is falling - As 11

> > > > degrees falls in the 2nd 1/3rd of dhanu - Drekkana is Mesha.

> > > > 4th Varga - As 11 degrees falls in the 3rd saptamsha ,Lagna

> > saptamsha

> > > > is Kumbha.

> > > >

> > > > Similraly - Lagna navamsha is Karka,Lagna Trimshamsha is dhanu.

> > > >

> > > > Thus the purpose of whole exercise was to say that when we say

> > > > shadvargas of Lagna or Mars,it does not mean the rashis owned by

> > > > Lagna or Mars.But the Rashis on towhich they are placed,having

> > > > hora,drekkana etc etc.

> > > >

> > > > Vargas of Mars in the 2nd Rashi from karakamsha too is no

> > differet.

> > > >

> > > > There are many meanings,that is why Rashi is called as

> > > > Kshethra /Riksha /havana etc.But i don't think sage will use the

> > > > saword to represent something belonging to same class.

> > > >

> > > > For example sage will not use ''sva'' to mean 2nd as well as

> > 3rd.Then

> > > > we cannot interpret.

> > > >

> > > > Similarly Rashi and navamsha will not be represented using the

> > same

> > > > word.Rashi/Kshethra/Riksha/Bhvana/Lagna etc are synonyms an ifthey

> > > > are used for navamsha then what is the whole purpose behind

> > defintion.

> > > >

> > > > On the other hand sva was used for iems from different classes.

> > > >

> > > > This wasin mind while making such a statement.I will try my best

> > to

> > > > polish my style of writing.I accept my limitations in writing.

> > > >

> > > > Respect

> > > > Pradeep

> > > >

> > > >

> > <%40>

> > > > <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > >

> > > > > I have not understood your question or the intent behind that.

> > The

> > > > > Vargas are divisions, within a rasi, ruled by different grahas.

> > So

> > > > if

> > > > > one wants t look at Vargas falling in lagna the shad Vargas will

> > > > mean

> > > > > the rasi equivalent occurring at lagna position in the 6

> > divisional

> > > > > charts of Rashi, Hora, Dreshkana, Navamsha, Dwaadashamsha and

> > > > > Trimshamsha. Or at least this is what I have learnt.

> > > > >

> > > > > Sages did not use words in vain or context. I agree. But that

> > does

> > > > not

> > > > > mean they used the words to mean only one thing always.

> > > > >

> > > > > I never said that the meaning can be changed to suit our

> > > > convenience and

> > > > > I would request you not to attribute such sentiments to me.

> > > > >

> > > > > However I do say that word are used in different contexts to

> > mean

> > > > > different things, especially in Sanskrit texts of Jyotish. I

> > have,

> > > > just

> > > > > a few minutes back use of " Sva " with different meaning at

> > different

> > > > > places by Varaha Mihira to you. I hope you do not also attribute

> > > > the

> > > > > words that you attributed to me to the venerated Varaha Mihira.

> > > > >

> > > > > Take care,

> > > > > Chandrashekhar,.

> > > > >

> > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Pls tell me what you mean by shadvargas of lagna.How do you

> > find

> > > > > > them.Do you go by ownership or placement

> > > > (Rashi/navamsha/dwadshamsha

> > > > > > etc).

> > > > > >

> > > > > > There are shlokas in Varahamihiras text which says ,Okarkshe

> > > > > > Purushamshakae.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Which means in Ojarashi and Oja amsha.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > As per me sages will not use any words out of context.If he

> > wants

> > > > to

> > > > > > say amsha he will mention it.He will not use Rashi to mean as

> > > > amsha.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Ojarkshe is Oja Rashi.Similarly Paparkshe is Papa Rashi.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > If you want to say as per our conveninece we can change the

> > > > meaning

> > > > > > of riksha/rashi/bhavana/bhavas as navamsha then i cannot say

> > > > > > anything.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > I can only respect your views.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Respect

> > > > > > Pradeep

> > > > > >

> > <%40>

> > > > <%40>

> > > > > > <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> > > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > I will tell you why that happens. You begin with quoting

> > > > Parashara

> > > > > > and

> > > > > > > then give a sutra from Jaimini as being said by Parashara.

> > > > > > > Interpretation of sutras is not the easiest of the things,

> > more

> > > > so

> > > > > > with

> > > > > > > Jaimini's Upadesha sutras. That the sutras use KaTaPaYaadi

> > > > > > encryption

> > > > > > > makes them even more difficult to interpret. I am sure you

> > have

> > > > > > noticed

> > > > > > > this when Sreenadh interpreted the KaTaPaYaadi Varga in a

> > wrong

> > > > > > fashion.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Then there is your insistence to let Sanskrit grammar give

> > a go

> > > > by

> > > > > > if

> > > > > > > that can make interpretation of a shloka or sutra fit your

> > > > > > proposition.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Any of the Shodasha Vargas of a rasi can be referred to as

> > > > Varga,

> > > > > > but as

> > > > > > > far as I know in astrology, when one talks of Varga, without

> > > > > > qualifying

> > > > > > > it, or Amshas that generally refers to navamsha or

> > > > Dwadashaamsha.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Another reason that we can not agree, or seem to agree, is

> > that

> > > > > > you are

> > > > > > > reluctant to call a navamsha by the nomenclature navamsha

> > rasi.

> > > > > > This

> > > > > > > makes it difficult to convey what I mean to say in English

> > as

> > > > that

> > > > > > is

> > > > > > > the language of the net and which both of us know. Now

> > since you

> > > > > > do not

> > > > > > > want to use the word Mesha navamsha as Mesha is a rashi and

> > by

> > > > > > your

> > > > > > > logic it can not be a navamsha, it becomes difficult to

> > convey

> > > > > > what I

> > > > > > > understand by the texts.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > I will like to draw your attention to the literal meaning

> > of the

> > > > > > word

> > > > > > > rasi. It means a heap and nothing more. In astrology since

> > it

> > > > > > > encompasses many stars that make up a nakshatra the 1/12th

> > > > > > division of

> > > > > > > the zodiac is called a Rasi. Or at least this is my

> > > > understanding

> > > > > > of the

> > > > > > > reason of using the word rasi for the 1/12th division of the

> > > > > > zodiac.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > I do not agree that by Chandra in Guru Varga it is meant

> > that

> > > > > > Varga of

> > > > > > > Chandra is being seen. To me we are talking about is whether

> > > > > > Chandra is

> > > > > > > falling in the Varga of Guru in which ever rasi he is

> > occupying.

> > > > > > So in

> > > > > > > Navamsha we see whether Chandra is occupying Pisces or

> > > > Sagittarius

> > > > > > > navamsha. I also do not agree that there are Vargas of

> > Chandra

> > > > or

> > > > > > of any

> > > > > > > planet for that matter. The 16 Vargas that Parashara talks

> > about

> > > > > > are

> > > > > > > that of a Rasi, beginning from the Rashi itself.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > If the Vargas are not owned by different planets, pray why

> > does

> > > > > > the sage

> > > > > > > tell us to see occupation of a friend, own etc. Varga to

> > assess

> > > > > > the

> > > > > > > strength of a planet in the Varga concerned?

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > I have interacted with many astrologers of yesteryears (with

> > > > > > respect to

> > > > > > > my age group) and have never found them claiming the Vargas

> > to

> > > > be

> > > > > > of

> > > > > > > only lagna and planets.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > If you insist that sage Parashara gave the SU. 52.- " Tatra

> > > > > > bhrigwongaraka

> > > > > > > varge paradarikaha " , perhaps you are referring to some

> > edition

> > > > of

> > > > > > BPHS

> > > > > > > that I do not have. However I do have that in the umpteen

> > > > > > different

> > > > > > > texts on Jaimini that I do have in my library. And by the

> > way,

> > > > > > some

> > > > > > > scholars have interpreted that to mean 9th from Karakamsha

> > and

> > > > not

> > > > > > the 2nd.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > I do not agree that a graha can simultaneously occupy the

> > Varga

> > > > of

> > > > > > both

> > > > > > > Venus and Mars, simultaneously, as is being suggested

> > whether in

> > > > > > rasi or

> > > > > > > in any of the Vargas. It could only occupy one or the other.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > I have seen you arguing in favor of looking at the

> > Shadvargas of

> > > > > > the

> > > > > > > grahas Venus and Mars. I would like you to look at all the

> > six

> > > > > > charts

> > > > > > > whose Vargas together are referred as Shadvargas and try to

> > find

> > > > > > out

> > > > > > > whether they do indeed contain the 6 Vargas of Venus and 6

> > > > Vargas

> > > > > > or

> > > > > > > Mars. I am sure that you will find them to contain only 5

> > Vargas

> > > > > > each of

> > > > > > > the grahas. Once you confirm this by looking at the 6 Vargas

> > > > your

> > > > > > self,

> > > > > > > tell me how one can look at Shadvargas of Venus or Mars as

> > is

> > > > > > being

> > > > > > > suggested to be the interpretation of the sutra that you are

> > > > > > referring to.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > You may also be interested to know that Parashara talks of

> > AK

> > > > > > falling in

> > > > > > > the Varga of Chandra, Mars or Venus also having the roving

> > eye

> > > > on

> > > > > > others

> > > > > > > wives. So the combination of Venus and Mars being the only

> > one

> > > > > > giving

> > > > > > > the roving eye for other's wives, that you are advancing as

> > a

> > > > > > standalone

> > > > > > > principle, may not, necessarily, be the way the sage looked

> > at

> > > > > > their

> > > > > > > interpretation.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Take care,

> > > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Those were written by me.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > I am very dissappointed to see that ,inspite of repeating

> > > > numerus

> > > > > > > > times,you are unable to get what i am saying.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > I am not talking about rashis lorded by shukra or Mars

> > here.I

> > > > am

> > > > > > > > talking about the shadvargas vargas of mars and shukra.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Pls tell me what is the meaning of shadvargas or simply

> > Varga

> > > > of

> > > > > > > > lagna.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > It is the rashi in which lagna is placed.The navamshaka of

> > > > > > > > Lagna,Trimshamshaka of Lagna etc.Can we see any lordship

> > as

> > > > you

> > > > > > > > say.Lagna does not own any rashi.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Similarly when we say vargas of Venus -It means Rashi of

> > > > > > > > Venus,Hora,navamshaka,drekkana,trimshamshaka etc.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Shadvarga is never the rashi owned by a planet.Then Lagna

> > can

> > > > > > never

> > > > > > > > have shadvarga.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > On the other hand if we say,Chandra in Guru Varga - We

> > are not

> > > > > > seeing

> > > > > > > > the shadvarga of Guru,but that of chandra.Is chandra

> > placed in

> > > > > > Guru

> > > > > > > > Rashi?Is Chandra navamshaka in Guru Rashi.Is Chandra

> > > > > > Trimshamshaka in

> > > > > > > > Guru Rashi etc is what we check.If so chandras vargas

> > fall in

> > > > > > guru

> > > > > > > > rashis or we say chandra is in guruvargas.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > For the same reason schoplars of yesteryears always say

> > Vargas

> > > > > > are

> > > > > > > > for our natal Lagna and Planets.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > On the other hand you are taking them as owned by a

> > > > planet.Every

> > > > > > > > shadvarga that derive is like that.You may check this with

> > > > shri

> > > > > > > > Narasimha,how he is deriving it for his software.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > For the same reason Bhrigu and Angara can have Varga

> > together

> > > > in

> > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > Rashi which is 2nd from Karakamsha.Sage clearly talks

> > about

> > > > the

> > > > > > > > vargas from both.Moreover the next shloka is talking about

> > > > Mars

> > > > > > and

> > > > > > > > Venus together or aspecting the 2nd from karakamsha.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > On the other hand if we go by your explanation,we have to

> > opt

> > > > for

> > > > > > > > just one among shukra or Mars which is not proper.Their

> > Joint

> > > > > > > > influence creates sexual drive.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > I request you to kindly read this with care.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Rspect

> > > > > > > > Pradeep

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > <%40>

> > > > <%40>

> > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> > > > > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > The below remarks are not from my mail at all. I do not

> > know

> > > > > > why

> > > > > > > > you

> > > > > > > > > think I would write that. I am sure you know that this

> > is

> > > > not

> > > > > > my

> > > > > > > > style

> > > > > > > > > of writing at all.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > " >From my experience -Mars + Venus creates certin

> > > > behaviour.I

> > > > > > feel

> > > > > > > > you

> > > > > > > > > too would have experienced this.Why are you going for

> > the

> > > > varga

> > > > > > > > owned by

> > > > > > > > > just one of them and that too without a planetary link

> > is

> > > > > > really

> > > > > > > > > worrying me.Shri Rath has translated so,i agree.But i

> > have

> > > > an

> > > > > > > > > inner feeling that Shri Rath will definitely correct

> > this

> > > > for

> > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > benfit

> > > > > > > > > of jyotish community. "

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > As to why I said they could not be having their Vargas

> > > > > > together in

> > > > > > > > one

> > > > > > > > > rasi or Bhava does not need any deeper explanation. If

> > you

> > > > are

> > > > > > > > looking

> > > > > > > > > at the 2nd from Karakamsha in the rasi chart, as you

> > think

> > > > is

> > > > > > > > right, you

> > > > > > > > > could not have both Mesha and Vrishabha or Tula and

> > > > Vrishchika

> > > > > > rasi

> > > > > > > > in

> > > > > > > > > 2nd from the Karakamsha, is that not so? Similarly if in

> > > > > > navamsha

> > > > > > > > chart

> > > > > > > > > the 2nd from Karakamsha is to be seen, the 2nd could be

> > not

> > > > > > both

> > > > > > > > navamshas.

> > > > > > > > > Take care,

> > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > I though you meant so.Because in subsequent lines we

> > can

> > > > see

> > > > > > > > Swamsha

> > > > > > > > > > and Karakamsha being used for the same purpose.But if

> > you

> > > > > > think

> > > > > > > > > > there are other places where swamsha is used for say

> > > > > > > > Lagnamsha ,then

> > > > > > > > > > i can trust you if you can point me to that. This

> > should

> > > > not

> > > > > > be a

> > > > > > > > > > problem and in no way it will affect us.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Venus and Mars can ofcourse have their Vargas in a

> > single

> > > > > > rashi or

> > > > > > > > > > Bhava.Venus can have navamsha there,Mars can have

> > navamsha

> > > > > > > > > > there,Venus can have Trimshamsha there,Mars can have

> > > > > > Trimshamsha

> > > > > > > > > > there,they both can have drekkana there etc etc.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Thus sage is talking about Bhrigu and Angara both (as

> > you

> > > > > > have

> > > > > > > > > > identified gramattically) having varga there and it is

> > > > very

> > > > > > much

> > > > > > > > > > possible.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > If you note the next line -Sage is talking about both

> > > > Venus

> > > > > > and

> > > > > > > > Mars

> > > > > > > > > > joining or aspecting the 2nd from Karakamsha.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >From my experience -Mars + Venus creates certin

> > > > behaviour.I

> > > > > > feel

> > > > > > > > you

> > > > > > > > > > too would have experienced this.Why are you going for

> > the

> > > > > > varga

> > > > > > > > > > owned by just one of them and that too without a

> > planetary

> > > > > > link is

> > > > > > > > > > really worrying me.Shri Rath has translated so,i

> > > > agree.But i

> > > > > > have

> > > > > > > > an

> > > > > > > > > > inner feeling that Shri Rath will definitely correct

> > this

> > > > > > for the

> > > > > > > > > > benfit of jyotish community.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > I am surprised as to why you say so.That they cannot

> > have

> > > > > > > > together.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Respect

> > > > > > > > > > Pardeep

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > <%40>

> > > > <%40>

> > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > <%40>,

> > Chandrashekhar

> > > > > > > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > I have never said that I do not think that Swamsha

> > and

> > > > > > > > Karakamsha

> > > > > > > > > > are

> > > > > > > > > > > different where the context demands so. At the same

> > > > time I

> > > > > > do

> > > > > > > > not

> > > > > > > > > > think

> > > > > > > > > > > grammar can be put to rest to in the name of

> > context,

> > > > > > without

> > > > > > > > some

> > > > > > > > > > sound

> > > > > > > > > > > reason.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Of course if you want contextual translation only,

> > then

> > > > > > one can

> > > > > > > > > > > certainly say that the " Meshadi raashige swaamshe "

> > can

> > > > > > always be

> > > > > > > > > > > translated as " Falling in Mesha navamsha in Mesha

> > rasi

> > > > > > etc. " .

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > By the way " Tatra Bhrigwonkaraka Varge " , that you

> > > > > > mention, does

> > > > > > > > > > not

> > > > > > > > > > > mean varga of both Venus and mars, but of varga of

> > > > Venus OR

> > > > > > > > Mars,

> > > > > > > > > > due to

> > > > > > > > > > > the grammar only. varga of two planets can not fall

> > in

> > > > one

> > > > > > > > > > > bhava/amsha/rasi whether in rasi or Navamsha or any

> > > > other

> > > > > > chart.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Take care,

> > > > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > Grammatically,what you are saying is also true.

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > But Jyotish defintions play a preceding role in

> > > > choosing

> > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > grammatical meaning.

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > For example one meaning of labhe ,Swamshe etc is

> > in

> > > > the

> > > > > > 11th

> > > > > > > > in

> > > > > > > > > > > > swamsha etc.

> > > > > > > > > > > > But if we go by that we will definitely translate

> > > > > > swamshe in

> > > > > > > > > > meshadi

> > > > > > > > > > > > rashige as ''in Swamsha'',thereby translating it

> > as

> > > > one

> > > > > > full

> > > > > > > > > > > > chart.This as you too agree,then cannot pass the

> > > > test,of

> > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > subsequent shlokas.I understand gladly that you

> > too

> > > > > > agree that

> > > > > > > > > > > > swamsha and karakamsha are the same.

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > So the context decides plural/singular and not

> > > > > > necessarily

> > > > > > > > > > the ''E''

> > > > > > > > > > > > as you have rightly mentioned.

> > > > > > > > > > > > But in essence what i want to say is ''E'' does

> > not

> > > > > > always

> > > > > > > > > > mean ''in

> > > > > > > > > > > > the'' as you have interpreted.Labheshe is an

> > > > > > example.Karake

> > > > > > > > is an

> > > > > > > > > > > > example.

> > > > > > > > > > > > Thus it can very well mean Varga of Shukra and

> > Mars-

> > > > > > which can

> > > > > > > > > > then be

> > > > > > > > > > > > six vargas or one varga.(Not lordship)

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > Tatra Bhrigwonkaraka Varge -

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > Tatra -(There) In the second from Karakamsha

> > > > > > > > > > > > Varga or Vargas of Venus and Mars

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > Now why should we need two qualifiesrs for

> > destination

> > > > (1)

> > > > > > In

> > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > 2nd

> > > > > > > > > > > > from karakamsha 2)in the vargas of?)-if we had

> > another

> > > > > > planet

> > > > > > > > > > then

> > > > > > > > > > > > your interpretation is right.That planet will

> > answer

> > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > question -

> > > > > > > > > > > > who is in the vargas of ?

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > Similarly - Swamshad dhane Shukrar

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > Swamshad dhane is already pointing to destination-

> > why

> > > > > > should

> > > > > > > > we

> > > > > > > > > > need

> > > > > > > > > > > > another ''in the'' vargas of.

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > On the other hand if we say in the 2nd from

> > > > karakamsha if

> > > > > > > > varga

> > > > > > > > > > of

> > > > > > > > > > > > mars and venus are present,it fits in

> > > > > > grammatically.Moreover

> > > > > > > > as

> > > > > > > > > > i had

> > > > > > > > > > > > mentioned rashi lordship without planetary link

> > > > > > > > (placement/amsha

> > > > > > > > > > etc)

> > > > > > > > > > > > is too general.

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > Respect

> > > > > > > > > > > > Pradeep

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > <%40>

> > > > <%40>

> > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > > <%40>,

> > > > Chandrashekhar

> > > > > > > > > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > I may be wrong but the " E " by itself does not

> > point

> > > > to

> > > > > > > > plural.

> > > > > > > > > > It

> > > > > > > > > > > > is the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > word Shadvarga indicating 6 Vargas that is one

> > group

> > > > > > > > (though it

> > > > > > > > > > > > contains

> > > > > > > > > > > > > more than one unit) and so " Varge " , the

> > singular is

> > > > > > used

> > > > > > > > with

> > > > > > > > > > that.

> > > > > > > > > > > > The

> > > > > > > > > > > > > " E " means " in " . I would be happy if an example

> > > > > > of " Varge "

> > > > > > > > being

> > > > > > > > > > > > plural

> > > > > > > > > > > > > can be given.

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > I do not at all think that Vargaka or Varga is

> > > > > > singular and

> > > > > > > > > > Vargake

> > > > > > > > > > > > or

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Varge is plural, at all. Both the manner of

> > using

> > > > the

> > > > > > word

> > > > > > > > only

> > > > > > > > > > > > > indicates singular. it is no use projecting

> > what is

> > > > > > clearly

> > > > > > > > > > Saptami

> > > > > > > > > > > > > vibhakti and singular as being a plural word. If

> > > > Varga

> > > > > > is

> > > > > > > > to be

> > > > > > > > > > > > used as

> > > > > > > > > > > > > dvivachana it may become " VargyoH " or " VargeSu "

> > (for

> > > > > > > > > > bahuvachan)

> > > > > > > > > > > > and not

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Varge. Perhaps some Sanskrit scholar on the list

> > > > would

> > > > > > like

> > > > > > > > to

> > > > > > > > > > > > comment

> > > > > > > > > > > > > on this.

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > So, much as I would like it to resolve, the

> > issue

> > > > > > remains

> > > > > > > > > > > > unresolved.

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > I will give you a relevant example to explain

> > how

> > > > > > VarGE

> > > > > > > > can

> > > > > > > > > > be

> > > > > > > > > > > > used in

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > context of plural.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Lagna Shad-VargaKE - Is pointing to all

> > vargas -

> > > > > > > > Plural.You

> > > > > > > > > > may

> > > > > > > > > > > > note

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > that the grammatical ending is with ''E''

> > showing

> > > > > > plurals

> > > > > > > > > > too can

> > > > > > > > > > > > be

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > expressed with such an ending.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Now from Vrishamsha''Ka'' and Tulamsha

> > example we

> > > > can

> > > > > > > > > > conclude

> > > > > > > > > > > > that

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > VargaKA and VarGA can be used for the same

> > > > purpose in

> > > > > > > > > > Ekavachan or

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > singular form and VargaKE and VarGE can be

> > used

> > > > for

> > > > > > > > > > Bahuvachan or

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Plural form.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > I hope this may help us in resolving our

> > issue.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Respect

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pradeep

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

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

> > ----

> > > > ---

> > > > > > -----

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

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database:

> > 269.10.0/886 -

> > > > > > Release

> > > > > > > > > > Date:

> > > > > > > > > > > > 7/4/2007 1:40 PM

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been

> > > > removed]

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > >

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

> > ----

> > > > ---

> > > > > > -

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

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.10.0/886 -

> > > > Release

> > > > > > > > Date:

> > > > > > > > > > 7/4/2007 1:40 PM

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been

> > removed]

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

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

> > ----

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

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.10.0/886 -

> > Release

> > > > > > Date:

> > > > > > > > 7/4/2007 1:40 PM

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

[Guest guest]

Dear Sri Bhaskar,

 

Seeing Karakamsa exclusively from Rasi alone is a question. I posted

earlier (a few days ago in this same thread) my own chart, which

clearly shows my preferences on deity of worship according to

Karakamsa position in the navamsa chart; it is not an experimental

data; it is practical on my own chart. I cannot accept that

Karakamsa shd be seen only from Rasi chart.

 

You need to a composite appoach; I know somebody in this thread

mocked at composite approach earlier; then they shd not do astrology

practice. Astrology is a complex subject and one HAS TO DO composite

approach. Rigid rules are a clear path to failure; or atleast

success is questionable.

 

Best regards,

Satya S Kolachina

 

, " Bhaskar " <bhaskar_jyotish

wrote:

>

> Drear Chandrasekharji,Pradeepji and other scholars,

>

> Please, I could not understand how the karakmsha

> has to be seen from the Rashi chart, and not

> from the Navamsha chart. I thought all

> the wonderful effects of planets placed in various

> positions from the Karakamsha including Kaivalya,

> are to be judged from the Karakamsha postion

> in Navamsha.

>

> That means now my Kaivalya is denied to me,

> as per this new learning.Can some reference wih respect

> to the ancient shlokas or the ancient authors be

> given to me for checking this, as this involves my

> own chart, and have personal interest in learning

> the actual method, but with pramana.

>

> regards,

> Bhaskar.

>

>

>

>

> , Chandrashekhar

> <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> >

> > Dear Pradeep,

> >

> > I see your point of view. anyway even within shadvargas we look

for the

> > degree of a planet falling within a certain span of degrees and

not one

> > particular bindu.

> >

> > I agree that rashi is a Varga and my question is if one can look

at

> > aspects in one Varga why not in other Vargas? I am sure you know

that

> > personally I use navamsha to find only the strength of grahas,

but

> there

> > is no reason to rule out aspects in Navamshas or other charts

totally.

> > One of the raj yogas mentioned by Parashara talks of aspect of

shubha

> > grahas on the karakamsha and Lagnamsha which should also be

tenanted by

> > Shubha grahas, leaving no doubt as to where the aspects are to

be seen.

> > And for the record the translation to that effect is by an

eminent

> > astrologer who was Professor of astrology in Banaras Hindu

University.

> >

> > Take care,

> > Chandrashekhar.

> >

> >

> > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > >

> > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > >

> > > Lagna as a bindu was mentioned for driving home the shadvarga

> > > calculations,if any members were having doubts.For shadvarga

> > > calculation of planets too we need the bindu or degree of a

planet

> > > within a rashi, as you are aware.

> > >

> > > We have to look at Rashis.This is so because Rashi (one 30

degree

> > > sector ) is the first varga.As this Varga is synonymous with

Bhava

> > > houses are analysed w.r to Rashis.

> > >

> > > Respect

> > > Pradeep

> > >

> > >

> > > <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > >

> > > > If lagna is a bindu a you propose, and nothing more, then

how can

> > > it

> > > > indicate an entire rasi? Now if this is correct, and

technically

> > > it is,

> > > > then by your reckoning there is no need to look at rasis

too. Is

> > > that

> > > > what you mean to say?

> > > >

> > > > If shadvargas are not related to the portion falling in the

lagna

> > > rasis,

> > > > which holds the degree of lagna Madhya, then it appears we

must ask

> > > the

> > > > sages to redefine Vargas. I doubt they need our advise.

> > > >

> > > > Take care,

> > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > >

> > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > >

> > > > > There was a purpose.I just wanted to explain it to the

members if

> > > > > some of them are not sure on what shadvarga of lagna is

and how it

> > > > > is calculated.

> > > > >

> > > > > As you have said Vargas are divisions of a rashi.But

shadvargas of

> > > > > Lagna is not the Vargas falling in Lagna.Here lagna is not

a

> > > > > rashi,but a bindu.Vargas are found from a degree.The

degree of a

> > > > > planet or degree of lagna.

> > > > >

> > > > > As you may know we do notneed six charts to dtermine

shadvargas of

> > > > > lagna.All we need is the degree of lagna and the rashi

rising.

> > > > >

> > > > > Let us take an example.Lagna is at 11 degrees in dhanu.

> > > > >

> > > > > Let us find the shadvargas of Lagna with th help of rising

rashi

> > > and

> > > > > degree.

> > > > >

> > > > > 1st Varga - The Rashi in which Lagna bindu is falling -

Dhanu

> > > > > 2nd Varga - The Hora in which Lagna bindu is falling - As

11

> > > degrees

> > > > > falls in the 1st half of dhanu - Surya Hora

> > > > > 3rd Varga - The drekkana in which Lagna bindu is falling -

As 11

> > > > > degrees falls in the 2nd 1/3rd of dhanu - Drekkana is

Mesha.

> > > > > 4th Varga - As 11 degrees falls in the 3rd saptamsha ,Lagna

> > > saptamsha

> > > > > is Kumbha.

> > > > >

> > > > > Similraly - Lagna navamsha is Karka,Lagna Trimshamsha is

dhanu.

> > > > >

> > > > > Thus the purpose of whole exercise was to say that when we

say

> > > > > shadvargas of Lagna or Mars,it does not mean the rashis

owned by

> > > > > Lagna or Mars.But the Rashis on towhich they are

placed,having

> > > > > hora,drekkana etc etc.

> > > > >

> > > > > Vargas of Mars in the 2nd Rashi from karakamsha too is no

> > > differet.

> > > > >

> > > > > There are many meanings,that is why Rashi is called as

> > > > > Kshethra /Riksha /havana etc.But i don't think sage will

use the

> > > > > saword to represent something belonging to same class.

> > > > >

> > > > > For example sage will not use ''sva'' to mean 2nd as well

as

> > > 3rd.Then

> > > > > we cannot interpret.

> > > > >

> > > > > Similarly Rashi and navamsha will not be represented using

the

> > > same

> > > > > word.Rashi/Kshethra/Riksha/Bhvana/Lagna etc are synonyms

an ifthey

> > > > > are used for navamsha then what is the whole purpose behind

> > > defintion.

> > > > >

> > > > > On the other hand sva was used for iems from different

classes.

> > > > >

> > > > > This wasin mind while making such a statement.I will try

my best

> > > to

> > > > > polish my style of writing.I accept my limitations in

writing.

> > > > >

> > > > > Respect

> > > > > Pradeep

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > <%40>

> > > > > <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > > >

> > > > > > I have not understood your question or the intent behind

that.

> > > The

> > > > > > Vargas are divisions, within a rasi, ruled by different

grahas.

> > > So

> > > > > if

> > > > > > one wants t look at Vargas falling in lagna the shad

Vargas will

> > > > > mean

> > > > > > the rasi equivalent occurring at lagna position in the 6

> > > divisional

> > > > > > charts of Rashi, Hora, Dreshkana, Navamsha,

Dwaadashamsha and

> > > > > > Trimshamsha. Or at least this is what I have learnt.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Sages did not use words in vain or context. I agree. But

that

> > > does

> > > > > not

> > > > > > mean they used the words to mean only one thing always.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > I never said that the meaning can be changed to suit our

> > > > > convenience and

> > > > > > I would request you not to attribute such sentiments to

me.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > However I do say that word are used in different

contexts to

> > > mean

> > > > > > different things, especially in Sanskrit texts of

Jyotish. I

> > > have,

> > > > > just

> > > > > > a few minutes back use of " Sva " with different meaning at

> > > different

> > > > > > places by Varaha Mihira to you. I hope you do not also

attribute

> > > > > the

> > > > > > words that you attributed to me to the venerated Varaha

Mihira.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Take care,

> > > > > > Chandrashekhar,.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Pls tell me what you mean by shadvargas of lagna.How

do you

> > > find

> > > > > > > them.Do you go by ownership or placement

> > > > > (Rashi/navamsha/dwadshamsha

> > > > > > > etc).

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > There are shlokas in Varahamihiras text which

says ,Okarkshe

> > > > > > > Purushamshakae.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Which means in Ojarashi and Oja amsha.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > As per me sages will not use any words out of

context.If he

> > > wants

> > > > > to

> > > > > > > say amsha he will mention it.He will not use Rashi to

mean as

> > > > > amsha.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Ojarkshe is Oja Rashi.Similarly Paparkshe is Papa

Rashi.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > If you want to say as per our conveninece we can

change the

> > > > > meaning

> > > > > > > of riksha/rashi/bhavana/bhavas as navamsha then i

cannot say

> > > > > > > anything.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > I can only respect your views.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Respect

> > > > > > > Pradeep

> > > > > > >

> > > <%40>

> > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> > > > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > I will tell you why that happens. You begin with

quoting

> > > > > Parashara

> > > > > > > and

> > > > > > > > then give a sutra from Jaimini as being said by

Parashara.

> > > > > > > > Interpretation of sutras is not the easiest of the

things,

> > > more

> > > > > so

> > > > > > > with

> > > > > > > > Jaimini's Upadesha sutras. That the sutras use

KaTaPaYaadi

> > > > > > > encryption

> > > > > > > > makes them even more difficult to interpret. I am

sure you

> > > have

> > > > > > > noticed

> > > > > > > > this when Sreenadh interpreted the KaTaPaYaadi Varga

in a

> > > wrong

> > > > > > > fashion.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Then there is your insistence to let Sanskrit

grammar give

> > > a go

> > > > > by

> > > > > > > if

> > > > > > > > that can make interpretation of a shloka or sutra

fit your

> > > > > > > proposition.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Any of the Shodasha Vargas of a rasi can be referred

to as

> > > > > Varga,

> > > > > > > but as

> > > > > > > > far as I know in astrology, when one talks of Varga,

without

> > > > > > > qualifying

> > > > > > > > it, or Amshas that generally refers to navamsha or

> > > > > Dwadashaamsha.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Another reason that we can not agree, or seem to

agree, is

> > > that

> > > > > > > you are

> > > > > > > > reluctant to call a navamsha by the nomenclature

navamsha

> > > rasi.

> > > > > > > This

> > > > > > > > makes it difficult to convey what I mean to say in

English

> > > as

> > > > > that

> > > > > > > is

> > > > > > > > the language of the net and which both of us know.

Now

> > > since you

> > > > > > > do not

> > > > > > > > want to use the word Mesha navamsha as Mesha is a

rashi and

> > > by

> > > > > > > your

> > > > > > > > logic it can not be a navamsha, it becomes difficult

to

> > > convey

> > > > > > > what I

> > > > > > > > understand by the texts.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > I will like to draw your attention to the literal

meaning

> > > of the

> > > > > > > word

> > > > > > > > rasi. It means a heap and nothing more. In astrology

since

> > > it

> > > > > > > > encompasses many stars that make up a nakshatra the

1/12th

> > > > > > > division of

> > > > > > > > the zodiac is called a Rasi. Or at least this is my

> > > > > understanding

> > > > > > > of the

> > > > > > > > reason of using the word rasi for the 1/12th

division of the

> > > > > > > zodiac.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > I do not agree that by Chandra in Guru Varga it is

meant

> > > that

> > > > > > > Varga of

> > > > > > > > Chandra is being seen. To me we are talking about is

whether

> > > > > > > Chandra is

> > > > > > > > falling in the Varga of Guru in which ever rasi he is

> > > occupying.

> > > > > > > So in

> > > > > > > > Navamsha we see whether Chandra is occupying Pisces

or

> > > > > Sagittarius

> > > > > > > > navamsha. I also do not agree that there are Vargas

of

> > > Chandra

> > > > > or

> > > > > > > of any

> > > > > > > > planet for that matter. The 16 Vargas that Parashara

talks

> > > about

> > > > > > > are

> > > > > > > > that of a Rasi, beginning from the Rashi itself.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > If the Vargas are not owned by different planets,

pray why

> > > does

> > > > > > > the sage

> > > > > > > > tell us to see occupation of a friend, own etc.

Varga to

> > > assess

> > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > strength of a planet in the Varga concerned?

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > I have interacted with many astrologers of

yesteryears (with

> > > > > > > respect to

> > > > > > > > my age group) and have never found them claiming the

Vargas

> > > to

> > > > > be

> > > > > > > of

> > > > > > > > only lagna and planets.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > If you insist that sage Parashara gave the SU. 52.-

" Tatra

> > > > > > > bhrigwongaraka

> > > > > > > > varge paradarikaha " , perhaps you are referring to

some

> > > edition

> > > > > of

> > > > > > > BPHS

> > > > > > > > that I do not have. However I do have that in the

umpteen

> > > > > > > different

> > > > > > > > texts on Jaimini that I do have in my library. And

by the

> > > way,

> > > > > > > some

> > > > > > > > scholars have interpreted that to mean 9th from

Karakamsha

> > > and

> > > > > not

> > > > > > > the 2nd.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > I do not agree that a graha can simultaneously

occupy the

> > > Varga

> > > > > of

> > > > > > > both

> > > > > > > > Venus and Mars, simultaneously, as is being suggested

> > > whether in

> > > > > > > rasi or

> > > > > > > > in any of the Vargas. It could only occupy one or

the other.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > I have seen you arguing in favor of looking at the

> > > Shadvargas of

> > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > grahas Venus and Mars. I would like you to look at

all the

> > > six

> > > > > > > charts

> > > > > > > > whose Vargas together are referred as Shadvargas and

try to

> > > find

> > > > > > > out

> > > > > > > > whether they do indeed contain the 6 Vargas of Venus

and 6

> > > > > Vargas

> > > > > > > or

> > > > > > > > Mars. I am sure that you will find them to contain

only 5

> > > Vargas

> > > > > > > each of

> > > > > > > > the grahas. Once you confirm this by looking at the

6 Vargas

> > > > > your

> > > > > > > self,

> > > > > > > > tell me how one can look at Shadvargas of Venus or

Mars as

> > > is

> > > > > > > being

> > > > > > > > suggested to be the interpretation of the sutra that

you are

> > > > > > > referring to.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > You may also be interested to know that Parashara

talks of

> > > AK

> > > > > > > falling in

> > > > > > > > the Varga of Chandra, Mars or Venus also having the

roving

> > > eye

> > > > > on

> > > > > > > others

> > > > > > > > wives. So the combination of Venus and Mars being

the only

> > > one

> > > > > > > giving

> > > > > > > > the roving eye for other's wives, that you are

advancing as

> > > a

> > > > > > > standalone

> > > > > > > > principle, may not, necessarily, be the way the sage

looked

> > > at

> > > > > > > their

> > > > > > > > interpretation.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Take care,

> > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Those were written by me.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > I am very dissappointed to see that ,inspite of

repeating

> > > > > numerus

> > > > > > > > > times,you are unable to get what i am saying.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > I am not talking about rashis lorded by shukra or

Mars

> > > here.I

> > > > > am

> > > > > > > > > talking about the shadvargas vargas of mars and

shukra.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Pls tell me what is the meaning of shadvargas or

simply

> > > Varga

> > > > > of

> > > > > > > > > lagna.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > It is the rashi in which lagna is placed.The

navamshaka of

> > > > > > > > > Lagna,Trimshamshaka of Lagna etc.Can we see any

lordship

> > > as

> > > > > you

> > > > > > > > > say.Lagna does not own any rashi.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Similarly when we say vargas of Venus -It means

Rashi of

> > > > > > > > > Venus,Hora,navamshaka,drekkana,trimshamshaka etc.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Shadvarga is never the rashi owned by a

planet.Then Lagna

> > > can

> > > > > > > never

> > > > > > > > > have shadvarga.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > On the other hand if we say,Chandra in Guru Varga -

We

> > > are not

> > > > > > > seeing

> > > > > > > > > the shadvarga of Guru,but that of chandra.Is

chandra

> > > placed in

> > > > > > > Guru

> > > > > > > > > Rashi?Is Chandra navamshaka in Guru Rashi.Is

Chandra

> > > > > > > Trimshamshaka in

> > > > > > > > > Guru Rashi etc is what we check.If so chandras

vargas

> > > fall in

> > > > > > > guru

> > > > > > > > > rashis or we say chandra is in guruvargas.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > For the same reason schoplars of yesteryears

always say

> > > Vargas

> > > > > > > are

> > > > > > > > > for our natal Lagna and Planets.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > On the other hand you are taking them as owned by a

> > > > > planet.Every

> > > > > > > > > shadvarga that derive is like that.You may check

this with

> > > > > shri

> > > > > > > > > Narasimha,how he is deriving it for his software.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > For the same reason Bhrigu and Angara can have

Varga

> > > together

> > > > > in

> > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > Rashi which is 2nd from Karakamsha.Sage clearly

talks

> > > about

> > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > vargas from both.Moreover the next shloka is

talking about

> > > > > Mars

> > > > > > > and

> > > > > > > > > Venus together or aspecting the 2nd from

karakamsha.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > On the other hand if we go by your explanation,we

have to

> > > opt

> > > > > for

> > > > > > > > > just one among shukra or Mars which is not

proper.Their

> > > Joint

> > > > > > > > > influence creates sexual drive.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > I request you to kindly read this with care.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Rspect

> > > > > > > > > Pradeep

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > <%40>

> > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > <%40>,

Chandrashekhar

> > > > > > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > The below remarks are not from my mail at all. I

do not

> > > know

> > > > > > > why

> > > > > > > > > you

> > > > > > > > > > think I would write that. I am sure you know

that this

> > > is

> > > > > not

> > > > > > > my

> > > > > > > > > style

> > > > > > > > > > of writing at all.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > " >From my experience -Mars + Venus creates certin

> > > > > behaviour.I

> > > > > > > feel

> > > > > > > > > you

> > > > > > > > > > too would have experienced this.Why are you

going for

> > > the

> > > > > varga

> > > > > > > > > owned by

> > > > > > > > > > just one of them and that too without a

planetary link

> > > is

> > > > > > > really

> > > > > > > > > > worrying me.Shri Rath has translated so,i

agree.But i

> > > have

> > > > > an

> > > > > > > > > > inner feeling that Shri Rath will definitely

correct

> > > this

> > > > > for

> > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > benfit

> > > > > > > > > > of jyotish community. "

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > As to why I said they could not be having their

Vargas

> > > > > > > together in

> > > > > > > > > one

> > > > > > > > > > rasi or Bhava does not need any deeper

explanation. If

> > > you

> > > > > are

> > > > > > > > > looking

> > > > > > > > > > at the 2nd from Karakamsha in the rasi chart, as

you

> > > think

> > > > > is

> > > > > > > > > right, you

> > > > > > > > > > could not have both Mesha and Vrishabha or Tula

and

> > > > > Vrishchika

> > > > > > > rasi

> > > > > > > > > in

> > > > > > > > > > 2nd from the Karakamsha, is that not so?

Similarly if in

> > > > > > > navamsha

> > > > > > > > > chart

> > > > > > > > > > the 2nd from Karakamsha is to be seen, the 2nd

could be

> > > not

> > > > > > > both

> > > > > > > > > navamshas.

> > > > > > > > > > Take care,

> > > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > I though you meant so.Because in subsequent

lines we

> > > can

> > > > > see

> > > > > > > > > Swamsha

> > > > > > > > > > > and Karakamsha being used for the same

purpose.But if

> > > you

> > > > > > > think

> > > > > > > > > > > there are other places where swamsha is used

for say

> > > > > > > > > Lagnamsha ,then

> > > > > > > > > > > i can trust you if you can point me to that.

This

> > > should

> > > > > not

> > > > > > > be a

> > > > > > > > > > > problem and in no way it will affect us.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Venus and Mars can ofcourse have their Vargas

in a

> > > single

> > > > > > > rashi or

> > > > > > > > > > > Bhava.Venus can have navamsha there,Mars can

have

> > > navamsha

> > > > > > > > > > > there,Venus can have Trimshamsha there,Mars

can have

> > > > > > > Trimshamsha

> > > > > > > > > > > there,they both can have drekkana there etc

etc.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Thus sage is talking about Bhrigu and Angara

both (as

> > > you

> > > > > > > have

> > > > > > > > > > > identified gramattically) having varga there

and it is

> > > > > very

> > > > > > > much

> > > > > > > > > > > possible.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > If you note the next line -Sage is talking

about both

> > > > > Venus

> > > > > > > and

> > > > > > > > > Mars

> > > > > > > > > > > joining or aspecting the 2nd from Karakamsha.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > >From my experience -Mars + Venus creates

certin

> > > > > behaviour.I

> > > > > > > feel

> > > > > > > > > you

> > > > > > > > > > > too would have experienced this.Why are you

going for

> > > the

> > > > > > > varga

> > > > > > > > > > > owned by just one of them and that too without

a

> > > planetary

> > > > > > > link is

> > > > > > > > > > > really worrying me.Shri Rath has translated

so,i

> > > > > agree.But i

> > > > > > > have

> > > > > > > > > an

> > > > > > > > > > > inner feeling that Shri Rath will definitely

correct

> > > this

> > > > > > > for the

> > > > > > > > > > > benfit of jyotish community.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > I am surprised as to why you say so.That they

cannot

> > > have

> > > > > > > > > together.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Respect

> > > > > > > > > > > Pardeep

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > <%40>

> > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > <%40>,

> > > Chandrashekhar

> > > > > > > > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > I have never said that I do not think that

Swamsha

> > > and

> > > > > > > > > Karakamsha

> > > > > > > > > > > are

> > > > > > > > > > > > different where the context demands so. At

the same

> > > > > time I

> > > > > > > do

> > > > > > > > > not

> > > > > > > > > > > think

> > > > > > > > > > > > grammar can be put to rest to in the name of

> > > context,

> > > > > > > without

> > > > > > > > > some

> > > > > > > > > > > sound

> > > > > > > > > > > > reason.

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > Of course if you want contextual translation

only,

> > > then

> > > > > > > one can

> > > > > > > > > > > > certainly say that the " Meshadi raashige

swaamshe "

> > > can

> > > > > > > always be

> > > > > > > > > > > > translated as " Falling in Mesha navamsha in

Mesha

> > > rasi

> > > > > > > etc. " .

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > By the way " Tatra Bhrigwonkaraka Varge " ,

that you

> > > > > > > mention, does

> > > > > > > > > > > not

> > > > > > > > > > > > mean varga of both Venus and mars, but of

varga of

> > > > > Venus OR

> > > > > > > > > Mars,

> > > > > > > > > > > due to

> > > > > > > > > > > > the grammar only. varga of two planets can

not fall

> > > in

> > > > > one

> > > > > > > > > > > > bhava/amsha/rasi whether in rasi or Navamsha

or any

> > > > > other

> > > > > > > chart.

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > Take care,

> > > > > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Grammatically,what you are saying is also

true.

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > But Jyotish defintions play a preceding

role in

> > > > > choosing

> > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > grammatical meaning.

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > For example one meaning of labhe ,Swamshe

etc is

> > > in

> > > > > the

> > > > > > > 11th

> > > > > > > > > in

> > > > > > > > > > > > > swamsha etc.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > But if we go by that we will definitely

translate

> > > > > > > swamshe in

> > > > > > > > > > > meshadi

> > > > > > > > > > > > > rashige as ''in Swamsha'',thereby

translating it

> > > as

> > > > > one

> > > > > > > full

> > > > > > > > > > > > > chart.This as you too agree,then cannot

pass the

> > > > > test,of

> > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > subsequent shlokas.I understand gladly

that you

> > > too

> > > > > > > agree that

> > > > > > > > > > > > > swamsha and karakamsha are the same.

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > So the context decides plural/singular and

not

> > > > > > > necessarily

> > > > > > > > > > > the ''E''

> > > > > > > > > > > > > as you have rightly mentioned.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > But in essence what i want to say is ''E''

does

> > > not

> > > > > > > always

> > > > > > > > > > > mean ''in

> > > > > > > > > > > > > the'' as you have interpreted.Labheshe is

an

> > > > > > > example.Karake

> > > > > > > > > is an

> > > > > > > > > > > > > example.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Thus it can very well mean Varga of Shukra

and

> > > Mars-

> > > > > > > which can

> > > > > > > > > > > then be

> > > > > > > > > > > > > six vargas or one varga.(Not lordship)

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Tatra Bhrigwonkaraka Varge -

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Tatra -(There) In the second from

Karakamsha

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Varga or Vargas of Venus and Mars

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Now why should we need two qualifiesrs for

> > > destination

> > > > > (1)

> > > > > > > In

> > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > 2nd

> > > > > > > > > > > > > from karakamsha 2)in the vargas of?)-if we

had

> > > another

> > > > > > > planet

> > > > > > > > > > > then

> > > > > > > > > > > > > your interpretation is right.That planet

will

> > > answer

> > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > question -

> > > > > > > > > > > > > who is in the vargas of ?

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Similarly - Swamshad dhane Shukrar

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Swamshad dhane is already pointing to

destination-

> > > why

> > > > > > > should

> > > > > > > > > we

> > > > > > > > > > > need

> > > > > > > > > > > > > another ''in the'' vargas of.

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > On the other hand if we say in the 2nd from

> > > > > karakamsha if

> > > > > > > > > varga

> > > > > > > > > > > of

> > > > > > > > > > > > > mars and venus are present,it fits in

> > > > > > > grammatically.Moreover

> > > > > > > > > as

> > > > > > > > > > > i had

> > > > > > > > > > > > > mentioned rashi lordship without planetary

link

> > > > > > > > > (placement/amsha

> > > > > > > > > > > etc)

> > > > > > > > > > > > > is too general.

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Respect

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Pradeep

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > <%40>

> > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > <%40>,

> > > > > Chandrashekhar

> > > > > > > > > > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > I may be wrong but the " E " by itself

does not

> > > point

> > > > > to

> > > > > > > > > plural.

> > > > > > > > > > > It

> > > > > > > > > > > > > is the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > word Shadvarga indicating 6 Vargas that

is one

> > > group

> > > > > > > > > (though it

> > > > > > > > > > > > > contains

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > more than one unit) and so " Varge " , the

> > > singular is

> > > > > > > used

> > > > > > > > > with

> > > > > > > > > > > that.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > The

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > " E " means " in " . I would be happy if an

example

> > > > > > > of " Varge "

> > > > > > > > > being

> > > > > > > > > > > > > plural

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > can be given.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > I do not at all think that Vargaka or

Varga is

> > > > > > > singular and

> > > > > > > > > > > Vargake

> > > > > > > > > > > > > or

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Varge is plural, at all. Both the manner

of

> > > using

> > > > > the

> > > > > > > word

> > > > > > > > > only

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > indicates singular. it is no use

projecting

> > > what is

> > > > > > > clearly

> > > > > > > > > > > Saptami

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > vibhakti and singular as being a plural

word. If

> > > > > Varga

> > > > > > > is

> > > > > > > > > to be

> > > > > > > > > > > > > used as

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > dvivachana it may become " VargyoH "

or " VargeSu "

> > > (for

> > > > > > > > > > > bahuvachan)

> > > > > > > > > > > > > and not

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Varge. Perhaps some Sanskrit scholar on

the list

> > > > > would

> > > > > > > like

> > > > > > > > > to

> > > > > > > > > > > > > comment

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > on this.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > So, much as I would like it to resolve,

the

> > > issue

> > > > > > > remains

> > > > > > > > > > > > > unresolved.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I will give you a relevant example to

explain

> > > how

> > > > > > > VarGE

> > > > > > > > > can

> > > > > > > > > > > be

> > > > > > > > > > > > > used in

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > context of plural.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Lagna Shad-VargaKE - Is pointing to all

> > > vargas -

> > > > > > > > > Plural.You

> > > > > > > > > > > may

> > > > > > > > > > > > > note

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that the grammatical ending is

with ''E''

> > > showing

> > > > > > > plurals

> > > > > > > > > > > too can

> > > > > > > > > > > > > be

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > expressed with such an ending.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Now from Vrishamsha''Ka'' and Tulamsha

> > > example we

> > > > > can

> > > > > > > > > > > conclude

> > > > > > > > > > > > > that

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > VargaKA and VarGA can be used for the

same

> > > > > purpose in

> > > > > > > > > > > Ekavachan or

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > singular form and VargaKE and VarGE

can be

> > > used

> > > > > for

> > > > > > > > > > > Bahuvachan or

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Plural form.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I hope this may help us in resolving

our

> > > issue.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Respect

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pradeep

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

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

-------

> > > ----

> > > > > ---

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

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

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No virus found in this incoming

message.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database:

> > > 269.10.0/886 -

> > > > > > > Release

> > > > > > > > > > > Date:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > 7/4/2007 1:40 PM

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have

been

> > > > > removed]

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

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

-------

> > > ----

> > > > > ---

> > > > > > > -

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

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database:

269.10.0/886 -

> > > > > Release

> > > > > > > > > Date:

> > > > > > > > > > > 7/4/2007 1:40 PM

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been

> > > removed]

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

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

-------

> > > ----

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

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database:

269.10.0/886 -

> > > Release

> > > > > > > Date:

> > > > > > > > > 7/4/2007 1:40 PM

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been

removed]

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

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

-------

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

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.10.0/886 -

Release

> > > > > Date:

> > > > > > > 7/4/2007 1:40 PM

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

[Guest guest]

Sorry; I did not post my complete chart detail, which I am not

interested to. Rather, I gave enough detail to illustrate my

viewpoint on Karakamsa.

 

Best regards,

Satya S Kolachina

 

, " Satya Sai Kolachina "

<skolachi wrote:

>

> Dear Sri Bhaskar,

>

> Seeing Karakamsa exclusively from Rasi alone is a question. I

posted

> earlier (a few days ago in this same thread) my own chart, which

> clearly shows my preferences on deity of worship according to

> Karakamsa position in the navamsa chart; it is not an experimental

> data; it is practical on my own chart. I cannot accept that

> Karakamsa shd be seen only from Rasi chart.

>

> You need to a composite appoach; I know somebody in this thread

> mocked at composite approach earlier; then they shd not do

astrology

> practice. Astrology is a complex subject and one HAS TO DO

composite

> approach. Rigid rules are a clear path to failure; or atleast

> success is questionable.

>

> Best regards,

> Satya S Kolachina

>

> , " Bhaskar " <bhaskar_jyotish@>

> wrote:

> >

> > Drear Chandrasekharji,Pradeepji and other scholars,

> >

> > Please, I could not understand how the karakmsha

> > has to be seen from the Rashi chart, and not

> > from the Navamsha chart. I thought all

> > the wonderful effects of planets placed in various

> > positions from the Karakamsha including Kaivalya,

> > are to be judged from the Karakamsha postion

> > in Navamsha.

> >

> > That means now my Kaivalya is denied to me,

> > as per this new learning.Can some reference wih respect

> > to the ancient shlokas or the ancient authors be

> > given to me for checking this, as this involves my

> > own chart, and have personal interest in learning

> > the actual method, but with pramana.

> >

> > regards,

> > Bhaskar.

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > , Chandrashekhar

> > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > >

> > > Dear Pradeep,

> > >

> > > I see your point of view. anyway even within shadvargas we

look

> for the

> > > degree of a planet falling within a certain span of degrees

and

> not one

> > > particular bindu.

> > >

> > > I agree that rashi is a Varga and my question is if one can

look

> at

> > > aspects in one Varga why not in other Vargas? I am sure you

know

> that

> > > personally I use navamsha to find only the strength of grahas,

> but

> > there

> > > is no reason to rule out aspects in Navamshas or other charts

> totally.

> > > One of the raj yogas mentioned by Parashara talks of aspect of

> shubha

> > > grahas on the karakamsha and Lagnamsha which should also be

> tenanted by

> > > Shubha grahas, leaving no doubt as to where the aspects are to

> be seen.

> > > And for the record the translation to that effect is by an

> eminent

> > > astrologer who was Professor of astrology in Banaras Hindu

> University.

> > >

> > > Take care,

> > > Chandrashekhar.

> > >

> > >

> > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > >

> > > > Lagna as a bindu was mentioned for driving home the shadvarga

> > > > calculations,if any members were having doubts.For shadvarga

> > > > calculation of planets too we need the bindu or degree of a

> planet

> > > > within a rashi, as you are aware.

> > > >

> > > > We have to look at Rashis.This is so because Rashi (one 30

> degree

> > > > sector ) is the first varga.As this Varga is synonymous with

> Bhava

> > > > houses are analysed w.r to Rashis.

> > > >

> > > > Respect

> > > > Pradeep

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > >

> > > > > If lagna is a bindu a you propose, and nothing more, then

> how can

> > > > it

> > > > > indicate an entire rasi? Now if this is correct, and

> technically

> > > > it is,

> > > > > then by your reckoning there is no need to look at rasis

> too. Is

> > > > that

> > > > > what you mean to say?

> > > > >

> > > > > If shadvargas are not related to the portion falling in

the

> lagna

> > > > rasis,

> > > > > which holds the degree of lagna Madhya, then it appears we

> must ask

> > > > the

> > > > > sages to redefine Vargas. I doubt they need our advise.

> > > > >

> > > > > Take care,

> > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > >

> > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > > >

> > > > > > There was a purpose.I just wanted to explain it to the

> members if

> > > > > > some of them are not sure on what shadvarga of lagna is

> and how it

> > > > > > is calculated.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > As you have said Vargas are divisions of a rashi.But

> shadvargas of

> > > > > > Lagna is not the Vargas falling in Lagna.Here lagna is

not

> a

> > > > > > rashi,but a bindu.Vargas are found from a degree.The

> degree of a

> > > > > > planet or degree of lagna.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > As you may know we do notneed six charts to dtermine

> shadvargas of

> > > > > > lagna.All we need is the degree of lagna and the rashi

> rising.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Let us take an example.Lagna is at 11 degrees in dhanu.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Let us find the shadvargas of Lagna with th help of

rising

> rashi

> > > > and

> > > > > > degree.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > 1st Varga - The Rashi in which Lagna bindu is falling -

> Dhanu

> > > > > > 2nd Varga - The Hora in which Lagna bindu is falling -

As

> 11

> > > > degrees

> > > > > > falls in the 1st half of dhanu - Surya Hora

> > > > > > 3rd Varga - The drekkana in which Lagna bindu is

falling -

> As 11

> > > > > > degrees falls in the 2nd 1/3rd of dhanu - Drekkana is

> Mesha.

> > > > > > 4th Varga - As 11 degrees falls in the 3rd

saptamsha ,Lagna

> > > > saptamsha

> > > > > > is Kumbha.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Similraly - Lagna navamsha is Karka,Lagna Trimshamsha is

> dhanu.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Thus the purpose of whole exercise was to say that when

we

> say

> > > > > > shadvargas of Lagna or Mars,it does not mean the rashis

> owned by

> > > > > > Lagna or Mars.But the Rashis on towhich they are

> placed,having

> > > > > > hora,drekkana etc etc.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Vargas of Mars in the 2nd Rashi from karakamsha too is no

> > > > differet.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > There are many meanings,that is why Rashi is called as

> > > > > > Kshethra /Riksha /havana etc.But i don't think sage will

> use the

> > > > > > saword to represent something belonging to same class.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > For example sage will not use ''sva'' to mean 2nd as

well

> as

> > > > 3rd.Then

> > > > > > we cannot interpret.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Similarly Rashi and navamsha will not be represented

using

> the

> > > > same

> > > > > > word.Rashi/Kshethra/Riksha/Bhvana/Lagna etc are synonyms

> an ifthey

> > > > > > are used for navamsha then what is the whole purpose

behind

> > > > defintion.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > On the other hand sva was used for iems from different

> classes.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > This wasin mind while making such a statement.I will try

> my best

> > > > to

> > > > > > polish my style of writing.I accept my limitations in

> writing.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Respect

> > > > > > Pradeep

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > <%40>

> > > > > > <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> > > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > I have not understood your question or the intent

behind

> that.

> > > > The

> > > > > > > Vargas are divisions, within a rasi, ruled by

different

> grahas.

> > > > So

> > > > > > if

> > > > > > > one wants t look at Vargas falling in lagna the shad

> Vargas will

> > > > > > mean

> > > > > > > the rasi equivalent occurring at lagna position in the

6

> > > > divisional

> > > > > > > charts of Rashi, Hora, Dreshkana, Navamsha,

> Dwaadashamsha and

> > > > > > > Trimshamsha. Or at least this is what I have learnt.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Sages did not use words in vain or context. I agree.

But

> that

> > > > does

> > > > > > not

> > > > > > > mean they used the words to mean only one thing always.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > I never said that the meaning can be changed to suit

our

> > > > > > convenience and

> > > > > > > I would request you not to attribute such sentiments

to

> me.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > However I do say that word are used in different

> contexts to

> > > > mean

> > > > > > > different things, especially in Sanskrit texts of

> Jyotish. I

> > > > have,

> > > > > > just

> > > > > > > a few minutes back use of " Sva " with different meaning

at

> > > > different

> > > > > > > places by Varaha Mihira to you. I hope you do not also

> attribute

> > > > > > the

> > > > > > > words that you attributed to me to the venerated

Varaha

> Mihira.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Take care,

> > > > > > > Chandrashekhar,.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Pls tell me what you mean by shadvargas of lagna.How

> do you

> > > > find

> > > > > > > > them.Do you go by ownership or placement

> > > > > > (Rashi/navamsha/dwadshamsha

> > > > > > > > etc).

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > There are shlokas in Varahamihiras text which

> says ,Okarkshe

> > > > > > > > Purushamshakae.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Which means in Ojarashi and Oja amsha.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > As per me sages will not use any words out of

> context.If he

> > > > wants

> > > > > > to

> > > > > > > > say amsha he will mention it.He will not use Rashi

to

> mean as

> > > > > > amsha.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Ojarkshe is Oja Rashi.Similarly Paparkshe is Papa

> Rashi.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > If you want to say as per our conveninece we can

> change the

> > > > > > meaning

> > > > > > > > of riksha/rashi/bhavana/bhavas as navamsha then i

> cannot say

> > > > > > > > anything.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > I can only respect your views.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Respect

> > > > > > > > Pradeep

> > > > > > > >

> > > > <%40>

> > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > <%40>,

Chandrashekhar

> > > > > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > I will tell you why that happens. You begin with

> quoting

> > > > > > Parashara

> > > > > > > > and

> > > > > > > > > then give a sutra from Jaimini as being said by

> Parashara.

> > > > > > > > > Interpretation of sutras is not the easiest of the

> things,

> > > > more

> > > > > > so

> > > > > > > > with

> > > > > > > > > Jaimini's Upadesha sutras. That the sutras use

> KaTaPaYaadi

> > > > > > > > encryption

> > > > > > > > > makes them even more difficult to interpret. I am

> sure you

> > > > have

> > > > > > > > noticed

> > > > > > > > > this when Sreenadh interpreted the KaTaPaYaadi

Varga

> in a

> > > > wrong

> > > > > > > > fashion.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Then there is your insistence to let Sanskrit

> grammar give

> > > > a go

> > > > > > by

> > > > > > > > if

> > > > > > > > > that can make interpretation of a shloka or sutra

> fit your

> > > > > > > > proposition.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Any of the Shodasha Vargas of a rasi can be

referred

> to as

> > > > > > Varga,

> > > > > > > > but as

> > > > > > > > > far as I know in astrology, when one talks of

Varga,

> without

> > > > > > > > qualifying

> > > > > > > > > it, or Amshas that generally refers to navamsha or

> > > > > > Dwadashaamsha.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Another reason that we can not agree, or seem to

> agree, is

> > > > that

> > > > > > > > you are

> > > > > > > > > reluctant to call a navamsha by the nomenclature

> navamsha

> > > > rasi.

> > > > > > > > This

> > > > > > > > > makes it difficult to convey what I mean to say in

> English

> > > > as

> > > > > > that

> > > > > > > > is

> > > > > > > > > the language of the net and which both of us know.

> Now

> > > > since you

> > > > > > > > do not

> > > > > > > > > want to use the word Mesha navamsha as Mesha is a

> rashi and

> > > > by

> > > > > > > > your

> > > > > > > > > logic it can not be a navamsha, it becomes

difficult

> to

> > > > convey

> > > > > > > > what I

> > > > > > > > > understand by the texts.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > I will like to draw your attention to the literal

> meaning

> > > > of the

> > > > > > > > word

> > > > > > > > > rasi. It means a heap and nothing more. In

astrology

> since

> > > > it

> > > > > > > > > encompasses many stars that make up a nakshatra

the

> 1/12th

> > > > > > > > division of

> > > > > > > > > the zodiac is called a Rasi. Or at least this is my

> > > > > > understanding

> > > > > > > > of the

> > > > > > > > > reason of using the word rasi for the 1/12th

> division of the

> > > > > > > > zodiac.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > I do not agree that by Chandra in Guru Varga it is

> meant

> > > > that

> > > > > > > > Varga of

> > > > > > > > > Chandra is being seen. To me we are talking about

is

> whether

> > > > > > > > Chandra is

> > > > > > > > > falling in the Varga of Guru in which ever rasi he

is

> > > > occupying.

> > > > > > > > So in

> > > > > > > > > Navamsha we see whether Chandra is occupying

Pisces

> or

> > > > > > Sagittarius

> > > > > > > > > navamsha. I also do not agree that there are

Vargas

> of

> > > > Chandra

> > > > > > or

> > > > > > > > of any

> > > > > > > > > planet for that matter. The 16 Vargas that

Parashara

> talks

> > > > about

> > > > > > > > are

> > > > > > > > > that of a Rasi, beginning from the Rashi itself.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > If the Vargas are not owned by different planets,

> pray why

> > > > does

> > > > > > > > the sage

> > > > > > > > > tell us to see occupation of a friend, own etc.

> Varga to

> > > > assess

> > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > strength of a planet in the Varga concerned?

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > I have interacted with many astrologers of

> yesteryears (with

> > > > > > > > respect to

> > > > > > > > > my age group) and have never found them claiming

the

> Vargas

> > > > to

> > > > > > be

> > > > > > > > of

> > > > > > > > > only lagna and planets.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > If you insist that sage Parashara gave the SU. 52.-

> " Tatra

> > > > > > > > bhrigwongaraka

> > > > > > > > > varge paradarikaha " , perhaps you are referring to

> some

> > > > edition

> > > > > > of

> > > > > > > > BPHS

> > > > > > > > > that I do not have. However I do have that in the

> umpteen

> > > > > > > > different

> > > > > > > > > texts on Jaimini that I do have in my library. And

> by the

> > > > way,

> > > > > > > > some

> > > > > > > > > scholars have interpreted that to mean 9th from

> Karakamsha

> > > > and

> > > > > > not

> > > > > > > > the 2nd.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > I do not agree that a graha can simultaneously

> occupy the

> > > > Varga

> > > > > > of

> > > > > > > > both

> > > > > > > > > Venus and Mars, simultaneously, as is being

suggested

> > > > whether in

> > > > > > > > rasi or

> > > > > > > > > in any of the Vargas. It could only occupy one or

> the other.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > I have seen you arguing in favor of looking at the

> > > > Shadvargas of

> > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > grahas Venus and Mars. I would like you to look at

> all the

> > > > six

> > > > > > > > charts

> > > > > > > > > whose Vargas together are referred as Shadvargas

and

> try to

> > > > find

> > > > > > > > out

> > > > > > > > > whether they do indeed contain the 6 Vargas of

Venus

> and 6

> > > > > > Vargas

> > > > > > > > or

> > > > > > > > > Mars. I am sure that you will find them to contain

> only 5

> > > > Vargas

> > > > > > > > each of

> > > > > > > > > the grahas. Once you confirm this by looking at

the

> 6 Vargas

> > > > > > your

> > > > > > > > self,

> > > > > > > > > tell me how one can look at Shadvargas of Venus or

> Mars as

> > > > is

> > > > > > > > being

> > > > > > > > > suggested to be the interpretation of the sutra

that

> you are

> > > > > > > > referring to.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > You may also be interested to know that Parashara

> talks of

> > > > AK

> > > > > > > > falling in

> > > > > > > > > the Varga of Chandra, Mars or Venus also having

the

> roving

> > > > eye

> > > > > > on

> > > > > > > > others

> > > > > > > > > wives. So the combination of Venus and Mars being

> the only

> > > > one

> > > > > > > > giving

> > > > > > > > > the roving eye for other's wives, that you are

> advancing as

> > > > a

> > > > > > > > standalone

> > > > > > > > > principle, may not, necessarily, be the way the

sage

> looked

> > > > at

> > > > > > > > their

> > > > > > > > > interpretation.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Take care,

> > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Those were written by me.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > I am very dissappointed to see that ,inspite of

> repeating

> > > > > > numerus

> > > > > > > > > > times,you are unable to get what i am saying.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > I am not talking about rashis lorded by shukra

or

> Mars

> > > > here.I

> > > > > > am

> > > > > > > > > > talking about the shadvargas vargas of mars and

> shukra.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Pls tell me what is the meaning of shadvargas or

> simply

> > > > Varga

> > > > > > of

> > > > > > > > > > lagna.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > It is the rashi in which lagna is placed.The

> navamshaka of

> > > > > > > > > > Lagna,Trimshamshaka of Lagna etc.Can we see any

> lordship

> > > > as

> > > > > > you

> > > > > > > > > > say.Lagna does not own any rashi.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Similarly when we say vargas of Venus -It means

> Rashi of

> > > > > > > > > > Venus,Hora,navamshaka,drekkana,trimshamshaka etc.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Shadvarga is never the rashi owned by a

> planet.Then Lagna

> > > > can

> > > > > > > > never

> > > > > > > > > > have shadvarga.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > On the other hand if we say,Chandra in Guru

Varga -

> We

> > > > are not

> > > > > > > > seeing

> > > > > > > > > > the shadvarga of Guru,but that of chandra.Is

> chandra

> > > > placed in

> > > > > > > > Guru

> > > > > > > > > > Rashi?Is Chandra navamshaka in Guru Rashi.Is

> Chandra

> > > > > > > > Trimshamshaka in

> > > > > > > > > > Guru Rashi etc is what we check.If so chandras

> vargas

> > > > fall in

> > > > > > > > guru

> > > > > > > > > > rashis or we say chandra is in guruvargas.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > For the same reason schoplars of yesteryears

> always say

> > > > Vargas

> > > > > > > > are

> > > > > > > > > > for our natal Lagna and Planets.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > On the other hand you are taking them as owned

by a

> > > > > > planet.Every

> > > > > > > > > > shadvarga that derive is like that.You may check

> this with

> > > > > > shri

> > > > > > > > > > Narasimha,how he is deriving it for his software.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > For the same reason Bhrigu and Angara can have

> Varga

> > > > together

> > > > > > in

> > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > Rashi which is 2nd from Karakamsha.Sage clearly

> talks

> > > > about

> > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > vargas from both.Moreover the next shloka is

> talking about

> > > > > > Mars

> > > > > > > > and

> > > > > > > > > > Venus together or aspecting the 2nd from

> karakamsha.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > On the other hand if we go by your

explanation,we

> have to

> > > > opt

> > > > > > for

> > > > > > > > > > just one among shukra or Mars which is not

> proper.Their

> > > > Joint

> > > > > > > > > > influence creates sexual drive.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > I request you to kindly read this with care.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Rspect

> > > > > > > > > > Pradeep

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > <%40>

> > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > <%40>,

> Chandrashekhar

> > > > > > > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > The below remarks are not from my mail at all.

I

> do not

> > > > know

> > > > > > > > why

> > > > > > > > > > you

> > > > > > > > > > > think I would write that. I am sure you know

> that this

> > > > is

> > > > > > not

> > > > > > > > my

> > > > > > > > > > style

> > > > > > > > > > > of writing at all.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > " >From my experience -Mars + Venus creates

certin

> > > > > > behaviour.I

> > > > > > > > feel

> > > > > > > > > > you

> > > > > > > > > > > too would have experienced this.Why are you

> going for

> > > > the

> > > > > > varga

> > > > > > > > > > owned by

> > > > > > > > > > > just one of them and that too without a

> planetary link

> > > > is

> > > > > > > > really

> > > > > > > > > > > worrying me.Shri Rath has translated so,i

> agree.But i

> > > > have

> > > > > > an

> > > > > > > > > > > inner feeling that Shri Rath will definitely

> correct

> > > > this

> > > > > > for

> > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > benfit

> > > > > > > > > > > of jyotish community. "

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > As to why I said they could not be having

their

> Vargas

> > > > > > > > together in

> > > > > > > > > > one

> > > > > > > > > > > rasi or Bhava does not need any deeper

> explanation. If

> > > > you

> > > > > > are

> > > > > > > > > > looking

> > > > > > > > > > > at the 2nd from Karakamsha in the rasi chart,

as

> you

> > > > think

> > > > > > is

> > > > > > > > > > right, you

> > > > > > > > > > > could not have both Mesha and Vrishabha or

Tula

> and

> > > > > > Vrishchika

> > > > > > > > rasi

> > > > > > > > > > in

> > > > > > > > > > > 2nd from the Karakamsha, is that not so?

> Similarly if in

> > > > > > > > navamsha

> > > > > > > > > > chart

> > > > > > > > > > > the 2nd from Karakamsha is to be seen, the 2nd

> could be

> > > > not

> > > > > > > > both

> > > > > > > > > > navamshas.

> > > > > > > > > > > Take care,

> > > > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > I though you meant so.Because in subsequent

> lines we

> > > > can

> > > > > > see

> > > > > > > > > > Swamsha

> > > > > > > > > > > > and Karakamsha being used for the same

> purpose.But if

> > > > you

> > > > > > > > think

> > > > > > > > > > > > there are other places where swamsha is used

> for say

> > > > > > > > > > Lagnamsha ,then

> > > > > > > > > > > > i can trust you if you can point me to that.

> This

> > > > should

> > > > > > not

> > > > > > > > be a

> > > > > > > > > > > > problem and in no way it will affect us.

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > Venus and Mars can ofcourse have their

Vargas

> in a

> > > > single

> > > > > > > > rashi or

> > > > > > > > > > > > Bhava.Venus can have navamsha there,Mars can

> have

> > > > navamsha

> > > > > > > > > > > > there,Venus can have Trimshamsha there,Mars

> can have

> > > > > > > > Trimshamsha

> > > > > > > > > > > > there,they both can have drekkana there etc

> etc.

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > Thus sage is talking about Bhrigu and Angara

> both (as

> > > > you

> > > > > > > > have

> > > > > > > > > > > > identified gramattically) having varga there

> and it is

> > > > > > very

> > > > > > > > much

> > > > > > > > > > > > possible.

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > If you note the next line -Sage is talking

> about both

> > > > > > Venus

> > > > > > > > and

> > > > > > > > > > Mars

> > > > > > > > > > > > joining or aspecting the 2nd from Karakamsha.

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > >From my experience -Mars + Venus creates

> certin

> > > > > > behaviour.I

> > > > > > > > feel

> > > > > > > > > > you

> > > > > > > > > > > > too would have experienced this.Why are you

> going for

> > > > the

> > > > > > > > varga

> > > > > > > > > > > > owned by just one of them and that too

without

> a

> > > > planetary

> > > > > > > > link is

> > > > > > > > > > > > really worrying me.Shri Rath has translated

> so,i

> > > > > > agree.But i

> > > > > > > > have

> > > > > > > > > > an

> > > > > > > > > > > > inner feeling that Shri Rath will definitely

> correct

> > > > this

> > > > > > > > for the

> > > > > > > > > > > > benfit of jyotish community.

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > I am surprised as to why you say so.That

they

> cannot

> > > > have

> > > > > > > > > > together.

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > Respect

> > > > > > > > > > > > Pardeep

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > <%40>

> > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > > <%40>,

> > > > Chandrashekhar

> > > > > > > > > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > I have never said that I do not think that

> Swamsha

> > > > and

> > > > > > > > > > Karakamsha

> > > > > > > > > > > > are

> > > > > > > > > > > > > different where the context demands so. At

> the same

> > > > > > time I

> > > > > > > > do

> > > > > > > > > > not

> > > > > > > > > > > > think

> > > > > > > > > > > > > grammar can be put to rest to in the name

of

> > > > context,

> > > > > > > > without

> > > > > > > > > > some

> > > > > > > > > > > > sound

> > > > > > > > > > > > > reason.

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Of course if you want contextual

translation

> only,

> > > > then

> > > > > > > > one can

> > > > > > > > > > > > > certainly say that the " Meshadi raashige

> swaamshe "

> > > > can

> > > > > > > > always be

> > > > > > > > > > > > > translated as " Falling in Mesha navamsha

in

> Mesha

> > > > rasi

> > > > > > > > etc. " .

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > By the way " Tatra Bhrigwonkaraka Varge " ,

> that you

> > > > > > > > mention, does

> > > > > > > > > > > > not

> > > > > > > > > > > > > mean varga of both Venus and mars, but of

> varga of

> > > > > > Venus OR

> > > > > > > > > > Mars,

> > > > > > > > > > > > due to

> > > > > > > > > > > > > the grammar only. varga of two planets can

> not fall

> > > > in

> > > > > > one

> > > > > > > > > > > > > bhava/amsha/rasi whether in rasi or

Navamsha

> or any

> > > > > > other

> > > > > > > > chart.

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Take care,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Grammatically,what you are saying is

also

> true.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > But Jyotish defintions play a preceding

> role in

> > > > > > choosing

> > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > grammatical meaning.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > For example one meaning of

labhe ,Swamshe

> etc is

> > > > in

> > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > 11th

> > > > > > > > > > in

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > swamsha etc.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > But if we go by that we will definitely

> translate

> > > > > > > > swamshe in

> > > > > > > > > > > > meshadi

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > rashige as ''in Swamsha'',thereby

> translating it

> > > > as

> > > > > > one

> > > > > > > > full

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > chart.This as you too agree,then cannot

> pass the

> > > > > > test,of

> > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > subsequent shlokas.I understand gladly

> that you

> > > > too

> > > > > > > > agree that

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > swamsha and karakamsha are the same.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > So the context decides plural/singular

and

> not

> > > > > > > > necessarily

> > > > > > > > > > > > the ''E''

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > as you have rightly mentioned.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > But in essence what i want to say

is ''E''

> does

> > > > not

> > > > > > > > always

> > > > > > > > > > > > mean ''in

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the'' as you have interpreted.Labheshe

is

> an

> > > > > > > > example.Karake

> > > > > > > > > > is an

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > example.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thus it can very well mean Varga of

Shukra

> and

> > > > Mars-

> > > > > > > > which can

> > > > > > > > > > > > then be

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > six vargas or one varga.(Not lordship)

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Tatra Bhrigwonkaraka Varge -

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Tatra -(There) In the second from

> Karakamsha

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Varga or Vargas of Venus and Mars

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Now why should we need two qualifiesrs

for

> > > > destination

> > > > > > (1)

> > > > > > > > In

> > > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > 2nd

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > from karakamsha 2)in the vargas of?)-if

we

> had

> > > > another

> > > > > > > > planet

> > > > > > > > > > > > then

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > your interpretation is right.That planet

> will

> > > > answer

> > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > question -

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > who is in the vargas of ?

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Similarly - Swamshad dhane Shukrar

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Swamshad dhane is already pointing to

> destination-

> > > > why

> > > > > > > > should

> > > > > > > > > > we

> > > > > > > > > > > > need

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > another ''in the'' vargas of.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > On the other hand if we say in the 2nd

from

> > > > > > karakamsha if

> > > > > > > > > > varga

> > > > > > > > > > > > of

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > mars and venus are present,it fits in

> > > > > > > > grammatically.Moreover

> > > > > > > > > > as

> > > > > > > > > > > > i had

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > mentioned rashi lordship without

planetary

> link

> > > > > > > > > > (placement/amsha

> > > > > > > > > > > > etc)

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > is too general.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Respect

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pradeep

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > <%40>

> > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > <%40>,

> > > > > > Chandrashekhar

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I may be wrong but the " E " by itself

> does not

> > > > point

> > > > > > to

> > > > > > > > > > plural.

> > > > > > > > > > > > It

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > is the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > word Shadvarga indicating 6 Vargas

that

> is one

> > > > group

> > > > > > > > > > (though it

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > contains

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > more than one unit) and so " Varge " , the

> > > > singular is

> > > > > > > > used

> > > > > > > > > > with

> > > > > > > > > > > > that.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > The

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > " E " means " in " . I would be happy if an

> example

> > > > > > > > of " Varge "

> > > > > > > > > > being

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > plural

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > can be given.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I do not at all think that Vargaka or

> Varga is

> > > > > > > > singular and

> > > > > > > > > > > > Vargake

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > or

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Varge is plural, at all. Both the

manner

> of

> > > > using

> > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > word

> > > > > > > > > > only

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > indicates singular. it is no use

> projecting

> > > > what is

> > > > > > > > clearly

> > > > > > > > > > > > Saptami

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > vibhakti and singular as being a

plural

> word. If

> > > > > > Varga

> > > > > > > > is

> > > > > > > > > > to be

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > used as

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > dvivachana it may become " VargyoH "

> or " VargeSu "

> > > > (for

> > > > > > > > > > > > bahuvachan)

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > and not

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Varge. Perhaps some Sanskrit scholar

on

> the list

> > > > > > would

> > > > > > > > like

> > > > > > > > > > to

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > comment

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > on this.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So, much as I would like it to

resolve,

> the

> > > > issue

> > > > > > > > remains

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > unresolved.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I will give you a relevant example

to

> explain

> > > > how

> > > > > > > > VarGE

> > > > > > > > > > can

> > > > > > > > > > > > be

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > used in

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > context of plural.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Lagna Shad-VargaKE - Is pointing to

all

> > > > vargas -

> > > > > > > > > > Plural.You

> > > > > > > > > > > > may

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > note

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that the grammatical ending is

> with ''E''

> > > > showing

> > > > > > > > plurals

> > > > > > > > > > > > too can

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > be

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > expressed with such an ending.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Now from Vrishamsha''Ka'' and

Tulamsha

> > > > example we

> > > > > > can

> > > > > > > > > > > > conclude

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > that

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > VargaKA and VarGA can be used for

the

> same

> > > > > > purpose in

> > > > > > > > > > > > Ekavachan or

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > singular form and VargaKE and VarGE

> can be

> > > > used

> > > > > > for

> > > > > > > > > > > > Bahuvachan or

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Plural form.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I hope this may help us in resolving

> our

> > > > issue.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Respect

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pradeep

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

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

--

> -------

> > > > ----

> > > > > > ---

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

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

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No virus found in this incoming

> message.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database:

> > > > 269.10.0/886 -

> > > > > > > > Release

> > > > > > > > > > > > Date:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 7/4/2007 1:40 PM

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message

have

> been

> > > > > > removed]

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

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

--

> -------

> > > > ----

> > > > > > ---

> > > > > > > > -

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

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database:

> 269.10.0/886 -

> > > > > > Release

> > > > > > > > > > Date:

> > > > > > > > > > > > 7/4/2007 1:40 PM

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have

been

> > > > removed]

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > >

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

--

> -------

> > > > ----

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

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database:

> 269.10.0/886 -

> > > > Release

> > > > > > > > Date:

> > > > > > > > > > 7/4/2007 1:40 PM

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been

> removed]

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

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

--

> -------

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

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.10.0/886 -

 

> Release

> > > > > > Date:

> > > > > > > > 7/4/2007 1:40 PM

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been

removed]

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

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

--

> ---

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

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.10.0/886 -

> Release

> > > > Date:

> > > > > > 7/4/2007 1:40 PM

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

[Guest guest]

Dear Chandrashekhar ji

 

Of course Yes,you are correct.Varga is found for this bindu and in

the case of planets their degree decides.The rest you have stated is

also as per definition.My point was made under the impression that

you have a view that,shadvarga of Lagna is shadvarga of a rashi.If so

it is not.Shad varga is found for Lagna bindu.

 

The full Rashi/Kshethra in which Lagna bindu falls becomes its first

Varga.

 

The Translation is entiterely correct and no one can contradict.This

is similar to one planet aspecting shadvargas of lagna.

 

Lagnamsha is already covered in the shadvargas of lagna.Karakamsha is

similar too.

 

Now let us see it on a chart.Karkamasha is in Dhanu.Jupiter is placed

in Mithuna Rashi.Shubha graha is aspecting Karakamsha Lagna

(Rashi).Similarly Lagnamsha.

 

You are already aware of the rules for aspects.

 

Respect

Pradeep

 

 

 

, Chandrashekhar

<chandrashekhar46 wrote:

>

> Dear Pradeep,

>

> I see your point of view. anyway even within shadvargas we look for

the

> degree of a planet falling within a certain span of degrees and not

one

> particular bindu.

>

> I agree that rashi is a Varga and my question is if one can look at

> aspects in one Varga why not in other Vargas? I am sure you know

that

> personally I use navamsha to find only the strength of grahas, but

there

> is no reason to rule out aspects in Navamshas or other charts

totally.

> One of the raj yogas mentioned by Parashara talks of aspect of

shubha

> grahas on the karakamsha and Lagnamsha which should also be

tenanted by

> Shubha grahas, leaving no doubt as to where the aspects are to be

seen.

> And for the record the translation to that effect is by an eminent

> astrologer who was Professor of astrology in Banaras Hindu

University.

>

> Take care,

> Chandrashekhar.

>

>

> vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> >

> > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> >

> > Lagna as a bindu was mentioned for driving home the shadvarga

> > calculations,if any members were having doubts.For shadvarga

> > calculation of planets too we need the bindu or degree of a planet

> > within a rashi, as you are aware.

> >

> > We have to look at Rashis.This is so because Rashi (one 30 degree

> > sector ) is the first varga.As this Varga is synonymous with Bhava

> > houses are analysed w.r to Rashis.

> >

> > Respect

> > Pradeep

> >

> >

> > <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > >

> > > Dear Pradeep,

> > >

> > > If lagna is a bindu a you propose, and nothing more, then how

can

> > it

> > > indicate an entire rasi? Now if this is correct, and technically

> > it is,

> > > then by your reckoning there is no need to look at rasis too. Is

> > that

> > > what you mean to say?

> > >

> > > If shadvargas are not related to the portion falling in the

lagna

> > rasis,

> > > which holds the degree of lagna Madhya, then it appears we must

ask

> > the

> > > sages to redefine Vargas. I doubt they need our advise.

> > >

> > > Take care,

> > > Chandrashekhar.

> > >

> > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > >

> > > > There was a purpose.I just wanted to explain it to the

members if

> > > > some of them are not sure on what shadvarga of lagna is and

how it

> > > > is calculated.

> > > >

> > > > As you have said Vargas are divisions of a rashi.But

shadvargas of

> > > > Lagna is not the Vargas falling in Lagna.Here lagna is not a

> > > > rashi,but a bindu.Vargas are found from a degree.The degree

of a

> > > > planet or degree of lagna.

> > > >

> > > > As you may know we do notneed six charts to dtermine

shadvargas of

> > > > lagna.All we need is the degree of lagna and the rashi rising.

> > > >

> > > > Let us take an example.Lagna is at 11 degrees in dhanu.

> > > >

> > > > Let us find the shadvargas of Lagna with th help of rising

rashi

> > and

> > > > degree.

> > > >

> > > > 1st Varga - The Rashi in which Lagna bindu is falling - Dhanu

> > > > 2nd Varga - The Hora in which Lagna bindu is falling - As 11

> > degrees

> > > > falls in the 1st half of dhanu - Surya Hora

> > > > 3rd Varga - The drekkana in which Lagna bindu is falling - As

11

> > > > degrees falls in the 2nd 1/3rd of dhanu - Drekkana is Mesha.

> > > > 4th Varga - As 11 degrees falls in the 3rd saptamsha ,Lagna

> > saptamsha

> > > > is Kumbha.

> > > >

> > > > Similraly - Lagna navamsha is Karka,Lagna Trimshamsha is

dhanu.

> > > >

> > > > Thus the purpose of whole exercise was to say that when we say

> > > > shadvargas of Lagna or Mars,it does not mean the rashis owned

by

> > > > Lagna or Mars.But the Rashis on towhich they are placed,having

> > > > hora,drekkana etc etc.

> > > >

> > > > Vargas of Mars in the 2nd Rashi from karakamsha too is no

> > differet.

> > > >

> > > > There are many meanings,that is why Rashi is called as

> > > > Kshethra /Riksha /havana etc.But i don't think sage will use

the

> > > > saword to represent something belonging to same class.

> > > >

> > > > For example sage will not use ''sva'' to mean 2nd as well as

> > 3rd.Then

> > > > we cannot interpret.

> > > >

> > > > Similarly Rashi and navamsha will not be represented using the

> > same

> > > > word.Rashi/Kshethra/Riksha/Bhvana/Lagna etc are synonyms an

ifthey

> > > > are used for navamsha then what is the whole purpose behind

> > defintion.

> > > >

> > > > On the other hand sva was used for iems from different

classes.

> > > >

> > > > This wasin mind while making such a statement.I will try my

best

> > to

> > > > polish my style of writing.I accept my limitations in writing.

> > > >

> > > > Respect

> > > > Pradeep

> > > >

> > > >

> > <%40>

> > > > <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > >

> > > > > I have not understood your question or the intent behind

that.

> > The

> > > > > Vargas are divisions, within a rasi, ruled by different

grahas.

> > So

> > > > if

> > > > > one wants t look at Vargas falling in lagna the shad Vargas

will

> > > > mean

> > > > > the rasi equivalent occurring at lagna position in the 6

> > divisional

> > > > > charts of Rashi, Hora, Dreshkana, Navamsha, Dwaadashamsha

and

> > > > > Trimshamsha. Or at least this is what I have learnt.

> > > > >

> > > > > Sages did not use words in vain or context. I agree. But

that

> > does

> > > > not

> > > > > mean they used the words to mean only one thing always.

> > > > >

> > > > > I never said that the meaning can be changed to suit our

> > > > convenience and

> > > > > I would request you not to attribute such sentiments to me.

> > > > >

> > > > > However I do say that word are used in different contexts to

> > mean

> > > > > different things, especially in Sanskrit texts of Jyotish. I

> > have,

> > > > just

> > > > > a few minutes back use of " Sva " with different meaning at

> > different

> > > > > places by Varaha Mihira to you. I hope you do not also

attribute

> > > > the

> > > > > words that you attributed to me to the venerated Varaha

Mihira.

> > > > >

> > > > > Take care,

> > > > > Chandrashekhar,.

> > > > >

> > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Pls tell me what you mean by shadvargas of lagna.How do

you

> > find

> > > > > > them.Do you go by ownership or placement

> > > > (Rashi/navamsha/dwadshamsha

> > > > > > etc).

> > > > > >

> > > > > > There are shlokas in Varahamihiras text which

says ,Okarkshe

> > > > > > Purushamshakae.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Which means in Ojarashi and Oja amsha.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > As per me sages will not use any words out of context.If

he

> > wants

> > > > to

> > > > > > say amsha he will mention it.He will not use Rashi to

mean as

> > > > amsha.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Ojarkshe is Oja Rashi.Similarly Paparkshe is Papa Rashi.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > If you want to say as per our conveninece we can change

the

> > > > meaning

> > > > > > of riksha/rashi/bhavana/bhavas as navamsha then i cannot

say

> > > > > > anything.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > I can only respect your views.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Respect

> > > > > > Pradeep

> > > > > >

> > <%40>

> > > > <%40>

> > > > > > <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> > > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > I will tell you why that happens. You begin with quoting

> > > > Parashara

> > > > > > and

> > > > > > > then give a sutra from Jaimini as being said by

Parashara.

> > > > > > > Interpretation of sutras is not the easiest of the

things,

> > more

> > > > so

> > > > > > with

> > > > > > > Jaimini's Upadesha sutras. That the sutras use

KaTaPaYaadi

> > > > > > encryption

> > > > > > > makes them even more difficult to interpret. I am sure

you

> > have

> > > > > > noticed

> > > > > > > this when Sreenadh interpreted the KaTaPaYaadi Varga in

a

> > wrong

> > > > > > fashion.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Then there is your insistence to let Sanskrit grammar

give

> > a go

> > > > by

> > > > > > if

> > > > > > > that can make interpretation of a shloka or sutra fit

your

> > > > > > proposition.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Any of the Shodasha Vargas of a rasi can be referred to

as

> > > > Varga,

> > > > > > but as

> > > > > > > far as I know in astrology, when one talks of Varga,

without

> > > > > > qualifying

> > > > > > > it, or Amshas that generally refers to navamsha or

> > > > Dwadashaamsha.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Another reason that we can not agree, or seem to agree,

is

> > that

> > > > > > you are

> > > > > > > reluctant to call a navamsha by the nomenclature

navamsha

> > rasi.

> > > > > > This

> > > > > > > makes it difficult to convey what I mean to say in

English

> > as

> > > > that

> > > > > > is

> > > > > > > the language of the net and which both of us know. Now

> > since you

> > > > > > do not

> > > > > > > want to use the word Mesha navamsha as Mesha is a rashi

and

> > by

> > > > > > your

> > > > > > > logic it can not be a navamsha, it becomes difficult to

> > convey

> > > > > > what I

> > > > > > > understand by the texts.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > I will like to draw your attention to the literal

meaning

> > of the

> > > > > > word

> > > > > > > rasi. It means a heap and nothing more. In astrology

since

> > it

> > > > > > > encompasses many stars that make up a nakshatra the

1/12th

> > > > > > division of

> > > > > > > the zodiac is called a Rasi. Or at least this is my

> > > > understanding

> > > > > > of the

> > > > > > > reason of using the word rasi for the 1/12th division

of the

> > > > > > zodiac.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > I do not agree that by Chandra in Guru Varga it is meant

> > that

> > > > > > Varga of

> > > > > > > Chandra is being seen. To me we are talking about is

whether

> > > > > > Chandra is

> > > > > > > falling in the Varga of Guru in which ever rasi he is

> > occupying.

> > > > > > So in

> > > > > > > Navamsha we see whether Chandra is occupying Pisces or

> > > > Sagittarius

> > > > > > > navamsha. I also do not agree that there are Vargas of

> > Chandra

> > > > or

> > > > > > of any

> > > > > > > planet for that matter. The 16 Vargas that Parashara

talks

> > about

> > > > > > are

> > > > > > > that of a Rasi, beginning from the Rashi itself.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > If the Vargas are not owned by different planets, pray

why

> > does

> > > > > > the sage

> > > > > > > tell us to see occupation of a friend, own etc. Varga to

> > assess

> > > > > > the

> > > > > > > strength of a planet in the Varga concerned?

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > I have interacted with many astrologers of yesteryears

(with

> > > > > > respect to

> > > > > > > my age group) and have never found them claiming the

Vargas

> > to

> > > > be

> > > > > > of

> > > > > > > only lagna and planets.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > If you insist that sage Parashara gave the SU. 52.-

" Tatra

> > > > > > bhrigwongaraka

> > > > > > > varge paradarikaha " , perhaps you are referring to some

> > edition

> > > > of

> > > > > > BPHS

> > > > > > > that I do not have. However I do have that in the

umpteen

> > > > > > different

> > > > > > > texts on Jaimini that I do have in my library. And by

the

> > way,

> > > > > > some

> > > > > > > scholars have interpreted that to mean 9th from

Karakamsha

> > and

> > > > not

> > > > > > the 2nd.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > I do not agree that a graha can simultaneously occupy

the

> > Varga

> > > > of

> > > > > > both

> > > > > > > Venus and Mars, simultaneously, as is being suggested

> > whether in

> > > > > > rasi or

> > > > > > > in any of the Vargas. It could only occupy one or the

other.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > I have seen you arguing in favor of looking at the

> > Shadvargas of

> > > > > > the

> > > > > > > grahas Venus and Mars. I would like you to look at all

the

> > six

> > > > > > charts

> > > > > > > whose Vargas together are referred as Shadvargas and

try to

> > find

> > > > > > out

> > > > > > > whether they do indeed contain the 6 Vargas of Venus

and 6

> > > > Vargas

> > > > > > or

> > > > > > > Mars. I am sure that you will find them to contain only

5

> > Vargas

> > > > > > each of

> > > > > > > the grahas. Once you confirm this by looking at the 6

Vargas

> > > > your

> > > > > > self,

> > > > > > > tell me how one can look at Shadvargas of Venus or Mars

as

> > is

> > > > > > being

> > > > > > > suggested to be the interpretation of the sutra that

you are

> > > > > > referring to.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > You may also be interested to know that Parashara talks

of

> > AK

> > > > > > falling in

> > > > > > > the Varga of Chandra, Mars or Venus also having the

roving

> > eye

> > > > on

> > > > > > others

> > > > > > > wives. So the combination of Venus and Mars being the

only

> > one

> > > > > > giving

> > > > > > > the roving eye for other's wives, that you are

advancing as

> > a

> > > > > > standalone

> > > > > > > principle, may not, necessarily, be the way the sage

looked

> > at

> > > > > > their

> > > > > > > interpretation.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Take care,

> > > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Those were written by me.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > I am very dissappointed to see that ,inspite of

repeating

> > > > numerus

> > > > > > > > times,you are unable to get what i am saying.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > I am not talking about rashis lorded by shukra or Mars

> > here.I

> > > > am

> > > > > > > > talking about the shadvargas vargas of mars and

shukra.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Pls tell me what is the meaning of shadvargas or

simply

> > Varga

> > > > of

> > > > > > > > lagna.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > It is the rashi in which lagna is placed.The

navamshaka of

> > > > > > > > Lagna,Trimshamshaka of Lagna etc.Can we see any

lordship

> > as

> > > > you

> > > > > > > > say.Lagna does not own any rashi.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Similarly when we say vargas of Venus -It means Rashi

of

> > > > > > > > Venus,Hora,navamshaka,drekkana,trimshamshaka etc.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Shadvarga is never the rashi owned by a planet.Then

Lagna

> > can

> > > > > > never

> > > > > > > > have shadvarga.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > On the other hand if we say,Chandra in Guru Varga - We

> > are not

> > > > > > seeing

> > > > > > > > the shadvarga of Guru,but that of chandra.Is chandra

> > placed in

> > > > > > Guru

> > > > > > > > Rashi?Is Chandra navamshaka in Guru Rashi.Is Chandra

> > > > > > Trimshamshaka in

> > > > > > > > Guru Rashi etc is what we check.If so chandras vargas

> > fall in

> > > > > > guru

> > > > > > > > rashis or we say chandra is in guruvargas.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > For the same reason schoplars of yesteryears always

say

> > Vargas

> > > > > > are

> > > > > > > > for our natal Lagna and Planets.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > On the other hand you are taking them as owned by a

> > > > planet.Every

> > > > > > > > shadvarga that derive is like that.You may check this

with

> > > > shri

> > > > > > > > Narasimha,how he is deriving it for his software.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > For the same reason Bhrigu and Angara can have Varga

> > together

> > > > in

> > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > Rashi which is 2nd from Karakamsha.Sage clearly talks

> > about

> > > > the

> > > > > > > > vargas from both.Moreover the next shloka is talking

about

> > > > Mars

> > > > > > and

> > > > > > > > Venus together or aspecting the 2nd from karakamsha.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > On the other hand if we go by your explanation,we

have to

> > opt

> > > > for

> > > > > > > > just one among shukra or Mars which is not

proper.Their

> > Joint

> > > > > > > > influence creates sexual drive.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > I request you to kindly read this with care.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Rspect

> > > > > > > > Pradeep

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > <%40>

> > > > <%40>

> > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > <%40>,

Chandrashekhar

> > > > > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > The below remarks are not from my mail at all. I do

not

> > know

> > > > > > why

> > > > > > > > you

> > > > > > > > > think I would write that. I am sure you know that

this

> > is

> > > > not

> > > > > > my

> > > > > > > > style

> > > > > > > > > of writing at all.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > " >From my experience -Mars + Venus creates certin

> > > > behaviour.I

> > > > > > feel

> > > > > > > > you

> > > > > > > > > too would have experienced this.Why are you going

for

> > the

> > > > varga

> > > > > > > > owned by

> > > > > > > > > just one of them and that too without a planetary

link

> > is

> > > > > > really

> > > > > > > > > worrying me.Shri Rath has translated so,i agree.But

i

> > have

> > > > an

> > > > > > > > > inner feeling that Shri Rath will definitely correct

> > this

> > > > for

> > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > benfit

> > > > > > > > > of jyotish community. "

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > As to why I said they could not be having their

Vargas

> > > > > > together in

> > > > > > > > one

> > > > > > > > > rasi or Bhava does not need any deeper explanation.

If

> > you

> > > > are

> > > > > > > > looking

> > > > > > > > > at the 2nd from Karakamsha in the rasi chart, as you

> > think

> > > > is

> > > > > > > > right, you

> > > > > > > > > could not have both Mesha and Vrishabha or Tula and

> > > > Vrishchika

> > > > > > rasi

> > > > > > > > in

> > > > > > > > > 2nd from the Karakamsha, is that not so? Similarly

if in

> > > > > > navamsha

> > > > > > > > chart

> > > > > > > > > the 2nd from Karakamsha is to be seen, the 2nd

could be

> > not

> > > > > > both

> > > > > > > > navamshas.

> > > > > > > > > Take care,

> > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > I though you meant so.Because in subsequent lines

we

> > can

> > > > see

> > > > > > > > Swamsha

> > > > > > > > > > and Karakamsha being used for the same

purpose.But if

> > you

> > > > > > think

> > > > > > > > > > there are other places where swamsha is used for

say

> > > > > > > > Lagnamsha ,then

> > > > > > > > > > i can trust you if you can point me to that. This

> > should

> > > > not

> > > > > > be a

> > > > > > > > > > problem and in no way it will affect us.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Venus and Mars can ofcourse have their Vargas in a

> > single

> > > > > > rashi or

> > > > > > > > > > Bhava.Venus can have navamsha there,Mars can have

> > navamsha

> > > > > > > > > > there,Venus can have Trimshamsha there,Mars can

have

> > > > > > Trimshamsha

> > > > > > > > > > there,they both can have drekkana there etc etc.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Thus sage is talking about Bhrigu and Angara both

(as

> > you

> > > > > > have

> > > > > > > > > > identified gramattically) having varga there and

it is

> > > > very

> > > > > > much

> > > > > > > > > > possible.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > If you note the next line -Sage is talking about

both

> > > > Venus

> > > > > > and

> > > > > > > > Mars

> > > > > > > > > > joining or aspecting the 2nd from Karakamsha.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >From my experience -Mars + Venus creates certin

> > > > behaviour.I

> > > > > > feel

> > > > > > > > you

> > > > > > > > > > too would have experienced this.Why are you going

for

> > the

> > > > > > varga

> > > > > > > > > > owned by just one of them and that too without a

> > planetary

> > > > > > link is

> > > > > > > > > > really worrying me.Shri Rath has translated so,i

> > > > agree.But i

> > > > > > have

> > > > > > > > an

> > > > > > > > > > inner feeling that Shri Rath will definitely

correct

> > this

> > > > > > for the

> > > > > > > > > > benfit of jyotish community.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > I am surprised as to why you say so.That they

cannot

> > have

> > > > > > > > together.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Respect

> > > > > > > > > > Pardeep

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > <%40>

> > > > <%40>

> > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > <%40>,

> > Chandrashekhar

> > > > > > > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > I have never said that I do not think that

Swamsha

> > and

> > > > > > > > Karakamsha

> > > > > > > > > > are

> > > > > > > > > > > different where the context demands so. At the

same

> > > > time I

> > > > > > do

> > > > > > > > not

> > > > > > > > > > think

> > > > > > > > > > > grammar can be put to rest to in the name of

> > context,

> > > > > > without

> > > > > > > > some

> > > > > > > > > > sound

> > > > > > > > > > > reason.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Of course if you want contextual translation

only,

> > then

> > > > > > one can

> > > > > > > > > > > certainly say that the " Meshadi raashige

swaamshe "

> > can

> > > > > > always be

> > > > > > > > > > > translated as " Falling in Mesha navamsha in

Mesha

> > rasi

> > > > > > etc. " .

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > By the way " Tatra Bhrigwonkaraka Varge " , that

you

> > > > > > mention, does

> > > > > > > > > > not

> > > > > > > > > > > mean varga of both Venus and mars, but of varga

of

> > > > Venus OR

> > > > > > > > Mars,

> > > > > > > > > > due to

> > > > > > > > > > > the grammar only. varga of two planets can not

fall

> > in

> > > > one

> > > > > > > > > > > bhava/amsha/rasi whether in rasi or Navamsha or

any

> > > > other

> > > > > > chart.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Take care,

> > > > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > Grammatically,what you are saying is also

true.

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > But Jyotish defintions play a preceding role

in

> > > > choosing

> > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > grammatical meaning.

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > For example one meaning of labhe ,Swamshe etc

is

> > in

> > > > the

> > > > > > 11th

> > > > > > > > in

> > > > > > > > > > > > swamsha etc.

> > > > > > > > > > > > But if we go by that we will definitely

translate

> > > > > > swamshe in

> > > > > > > > > > meshadi

> > > > > > > > > > > > rashige as ''in Swamsha'',thereby translating

it

> > as

> > > > one

> > > > > > full

> > > > > > > > > > > > chart.This as you too agree,then cannot pass

the

> > > > test,of

> > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > subsequent shlokas.I understand gladly that

you

> > too

> > > > > > agree that

> > > > > > > > > > > > swamsha and karakamsha are the same.

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > So the context decides plural/singular and not

> > > > > > necessarily

> > > > > > > > > > the ''E''

> > > > > > > > > > > > as you have rightly mentioned.

> > > > > > > > > > > > But in essence what i want to say is ''E''

does

> > not

> > > > > > always

> > > > > > > > > > mean ''in

> > > > > > > > > > > > the'' as you have interpreted.Labheshe is an

> > > > > > example.Karake

> > > > > > > > is an

> > > > > > > > > > > > example.

> > > > > > > > > > > > Thus it can very well mean Varga of Shukra and

> > Mars-

> > > > > > which can

> > > > > > > > > > then be

> > > > > > > > > > > > six vargas or one varga.(Not lordship)

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > Tatra Bhrigwonkaraka Varge -

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > Tatra -(There) In the second from Karakamsha

> > > > > > > > > > > > Varga or Vargas of Venus and Mars

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > Now why should we need two qualifiesrs for

> > destination

> > > > (1)

> > > > > > In

> > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > 2nd

> > > > > > > > > > > > from karakamsha 2)in the vargas of?)-if we had

> > another

> > > > > > planet

> > > > > > > > > > then

> > > > > > > > > > > > your interpretation is right.That planet will

> > answer

> > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > question -

> > > > > > > > > > > > who is in the vargas of ?

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > Similarly - Swamshad dhane Shukrar

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > Swamshad dhane is already pointing to

destination-

> > why

> > > > > > should

> > > > > > > > we

> > > > > > > > > > need

> > > > > > > > > > > > another ''in the'' vargas of.

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > On the other hand if we say in the 2nd from

> > > > karakamsha if

> > > > > > > > varga

> > > > > > > > > > of

> > > > > > > > > > > > mars and venus are present,it fits in

> > > > > > grammatically.Moreover

> > > > > > > > as

> > > > > > > > > > i had

> > > > > > > > > > > > mentioned rashi lordship without planetary

link

> > > > > > > > (placement/amsha

> > > > > > > > > > etc)

> > > > > > > > > > > > is too general.

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > Respect

> > > > > > > > > > > > Pradeep

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > <%40>

> > > > <%40>

> > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > > <%40>,

> > > > Chandrashekhar

> > > > > > > > > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > I may be wrong but the " E " by itself does

not

> > point

> > > > to

> > > > > > > > plural.

> > > > > > > > > > It

> > > > > > > > > > > > is the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > word Shadvarga indicating 6 Vargas that is

one

> > group

> > > > > > > > (though it

> > > > > > > > > > > > contains

> > > > > > > > > > > > > more than one unit) and so " Varge " , the

> > singular is

> > > > > > used

> > > > > > > > with

> > > > > > > > > > that.

> > > > > > > > > > > > The

> > > > > > > > > > > > > " E " means " in " . I would be happy if an

example

> > > > > > of " Varge "

> > > > > > > > being

> > > > > > > > > > > > plural

> > > > > > > > > > > > > can be given.

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > I do not at all think that Vargaka or Varga

is

> > > > > > singular and

> > > > > > > > > > Vargake

> > > > > > > > > > > > or

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Varge is plural, at all. Both the manner of

> > using

> > > > the

> > > > > > word

> > > > > > > > only

> > > > > > > > > > > > > indicates singular. it is no use projecting

> > what is

> > > > > > clearly

> > > > > > > > > > Saptami

> > > > > > > > > > > > > vibhakti and singular as being a plural

word. If

> > > > Varga

> > > > > > is

> > > > > > > > to be

> > > > > > > > > > > > used as

> > > > > > > > > > > > > dvivachana it may become " VargyoH "

or " VargeSu "

> > (for

> > > > > > > > > > bahuvachan)

> > > > > > > > > > > > and not

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Varge. Perhaps some Sanskrit scholar on the

list

> > > > would

> > > > > > like

> > > > > > > > to

> > > > > > > > > > > > comment

> > > > > > > > > > > > > on this.

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > So, much as I would like it to resolve, the

> > issue

> > > > > > remains

> > > > > > > > > > > > unresolved.

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > I will give you a relevant example to

explain

> > how

> > > > > > VarGE

> > > > > > > > can

> > > > > > > > > > be

> > > > > > > > > > > > used in

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > context of plural.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Lagna Shad-VargaKE - Is pointing to all

> > vargas -

> > > > > > > > Plural.You

> > > > > > > > > > may

> > > > > > > > > > > > note

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > that the grammatical ending is with ''E''

> > showing

> > > > > > plurals

> > > > > > > > > > too can

> > > > > > > > > > > > be

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > expressed with such an ending.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Now from Vrishamsha''Ka'' and Tulamsha

> > example we

> > > > can

> > > > > > > > > > conclude

> > > > > > > > > > > > that

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > VargaKA and VarGA can be used for the same

> > > > purpose in

> > > > > > > > > > Ekavachan or

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > singular form and VargaKE and VarGE can be

> > used

> > > > for

> > > > > > > > > > Bahuvachan or

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Plural form.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > I hope this may help us in resolving our

> > issue.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Respect

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pradeep

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

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

----

> > ----

> > > > ---

> > > > > > -----

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

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database:

> > 269.10.0/886 -

> > > > > > Release

> > > > > > > > > > Date:

> > > > > > > > > > > > 7/4/2007 1:40 PM

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been

> > > > removed]

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > >

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

----

> > ----

> > > > ---

> > > > > > -

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

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database:

269.10.0/886 -

> > > > Release

> > > > > > > > Date:

> > > > > > > > > > 7/4/2007 1:40 PM

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been

> > removed]

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

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

----

> > ----

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

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.10.0/886 -

> > Release

> > > > > > Date:

> > > > > > > > 7/4/2007 1:40 PM

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been

removed]

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

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

----

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

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.10.0/886 -

Release

> > > > Date:

> > > > > > 7/4/2007 1:40 PM

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

[Guest guest]

Dear Bhaskar ji

 

It means you were not at all reading the mails exchanged between

Chandrashekhar ji and me.So many mails.So does it mean ,you were

replying without reading my mails?

 

Regds

Pradeep

 

, " Bhaskar " <bhaskar_jyotish

wrote:

>

> Drear Chandrasekharji,Pradeepji and other scholars,

>

> Please, I could not understand how the karakmsha

> has to be seen from the Rashi chart, and not

> from the Navamsha chart. I thought all

> the wonderful effects of planets placed in various

> positions from the Karakamsha including Kaivalya,

> are to be judged from the Karakamsha postion

> in Navamsha.

>

> That means now my Kaivalya is denied to me,

> as per this new learning.Can some reference wih respect

> to the ancient shlokas or the ancient authors be

> given to me for checking this, as this involves my

> own chart, and have personal interest in learning

> the actual method, but with pramana.

>

> regards,

> Bhaskar.

>

>

>

>

> , Chandrashekhar

> <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> >

> > Dear Pradeep,

> >

> > I see your point of view. anyway even within shadvargas we look

for the

> > degree of a planet falling within a certain span of degrees and

not one

> > particular bindu.

> >

> > I agree that rashi is a Varga and my question is if one can look

at

> > aspects in one Varga why not in other Vargas? I am sure you know

that

> > personally I use navamsha to find only the strength of grahas, but

> there

> > is no reason to rule out aspects in Navamshas or other charts

totally.

> > One of the raj yogas mentioned by Parashara talks of aspect of

shubha

> > grahas on the karakamsha and Lagnamsha which should also be

tenanted by

> > Shubha grahas, leaving no doubt as to where the aspects are to be

seen.

> > And for the record the translation to that effect is by an

eminent

> > astrologer who was Professor of astrology in Banaras Hindu

University.

> >

> > Take care,

> > Chandrashekhar.

> >

> >

> > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > >

> > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > >

> > > Lagna as a bindu was mentioned for driving home the shadvarga

> > > calculations,if any members were having doubts.For shadvarga

> > > calculation of planets too we need the bindu or degree of a

planet

> > > within a rashi, as you are aware.

> > >

> > > We have to look at Rashis.This is so because Rashi (one 30

degree

> > > sector ) is the first varga.As this Varga is synonymous with

Bhava

> > > houses are analysed w.r to Rashis.

> > >

> > > Respect

> > > Pradeep

> > >

> > >

> > > <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > >

> > > > If lagna is a bindu a you propose, and nothing more, then how

can

> > > it

> > > > indicate an entire rasi? Now if this is correct, and

technically

> > > it is,

> > > > then by your reckoning there is no need to look at rasis too.

Is

> > > that

> > > > what you mean to say?

> > > >

> > > > If shadvargas are not related to the portion falling in the

lagna

> > > rasis,

> > > > which holds the degree of lagna Madhya, then it appears we

must ask

> > > the

> > > > sages to redefine Vargas. I doubt they need our advise.

> > > >

> > > > Take care,

> > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > >

> > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > >

> > > > > There was a purpose.I just wanted to explain it to the

members if

> > > > > some of them are not sure on what shadvarga of lagna is and

how it

> > > > > is calculated.

> > > > >

> > > > > As you have said Vargas are divisions of a rashi.But

shadvargas of

> > > > > Lagna is not the Vargas falling in Lagna.Here lagna is not a

> > > > > rashi,but a bindu.Vargas are found from a degree.The degree

of a

> > > > > planet or degree of lagna.

> > > > >

> > > > > As you may know we do notneed six charts to dtermine

shadvargas of

> > > > > lagna.All we need is the degree of lagna and the rashi

rising.

> > > > >

> > > > > Let us take an example.Lagna is at 11 degrees in dhanu.

> > > > >

> > > > > Let us find the shadvargas of Lagna with th help of rising

rashi

> > > and

> > > > > degree.

> > > > >

> > > > > 1st Varga - The Rashi in which Lagna bindu is falling -

Dhanu

> > > > > 2nd Varga - The Hora in which Lagna bindu is falling - As 11

> > > degrees

> > > > > falls in the 1st half of dhanu - Surya Hora

> > > > > 3rd Varga - The drekkana in which Lagna bindu is falling -

As 11

> > > > > degrees falls in the 2nd 1/3rd of dhanu - Drekkana is Mesha.

> > > > > 4th Varga - As 11 degrees falls in the 3rd saptamsha ,Lagna

> > > saptamsha

> > > > > is Kumbha.

> > > > >

> > > > > Similraly - Lagna navamsha is Karka,Lagna Trimshamsha is

dhanu.

> > > > >

> > > > > Thus the purpose of whole exercise was to say that when we

say

> > > > > shadvargas of Lagna or Mars,it does not mean the rashis

owned by

> > > > > Lagna or Mars.But the Rashis on towhich they are

placed,having

> > > > > hora,drekkana etc etc.

> > > > >

> > > > > Vargas of Mars in the 2nd Rashi from karakamsha too is no

> > > differet.

> > > > >

> > > > > There are many meanings,that is why Rashi is called as

> > > > > Kshethra /Riksha /havana etc.But i don't think sage will

use the

> > > > > saword to represent something belonging to same class.

> > > > >

> > > > > For example sage will not use ''sva'' to mean 2nd as well as

> > > 3rd.Then

> > > > > we cannot interpret.

> > > > >

> > > > > Similarly Rashi and navamsha will not be represented using

the

> > > same

> > > > > word.Rashi/Kshethra/Riksha/Bhvana/Lagna etc are synonyms an

ifthey

> > > > > are used for navamsha then what is the whole purpose behind

> > > defintion.

> > > > >

> > > > > On the other hand sva was used for iems from different

classes.

> > > > >

> > > > > This wasin mind while making such a statement.I will try my

best

> > > to

> > > > > polish my style of writing.I accept my limitations in

writing.

> > > > >

> > > > > Respect

> > > > > Pradeep

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > <%40>

> > > > > <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > > >

> > > > > > I have not understood your question or the intent behind

that.

> > > The

> > > > > > Vargas are divisions, within a rasi, ruled by different

grahas.

> > > So

> > > > > if

> > > > > > one wants t look at Vargas falling in lagna the shad

Vargas will

> > > > > mean

> > > > > > the rasi equivalent occurring at lagna position in the 6

> > > divisional

> > > > > > charts of Rashi, Hora, Dreshkana, Navamsha, Dwaadashamsha

and

> > > > > > Trimshamsha. Or at least this is what I have learnt.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Sages did not use words in vain or context. I agree. But

that

> > > does

> > > > > not

> > > > > > mean they used the words to mean only one thing always.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > I never said that the meaning can be changed to suit our

> > > > > convenience and

> > > > > > I would request you not to attribute such sentiments to

me.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > However I do say that word are used in different contexts

to

> > > mean

> > > > > > different things, especially in Sanskrit texts of

Jyotish. I

> > > have,

> > > > > just

> > > > > > a few minutes back use of " Sva " with different meaning at

> > > different

> > > > > > places by Varaha Mihira to you. I hope you do not also

attribute

> > > > > the

> > > > > > words that you attributed to me to the venerated Varaha

Mihira.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Take care,

> > > > > > Chandrashekhar,.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Pls tell me what you mean by shadvargas of lagna.How do

you

> > > find

> > > > > > > them.Do you go by ownership or placement

> > > > > (Rashi/navamsha/dwadshamsha

> > > > > > > etc).

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > There are shlokas in Varahamihiras text which

says ,Okarkshe

> > > > > > > Purushamshakae.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Which means in Ojarashi and Oja amsha.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > As per me sages will not use any words out of

context.If he

> > > wants

> > > > > to

> > > > > > > say amsha he will mention it.He will not use Rashi to

mean as

> > > > > amsha.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Ojarkshe is Oja Rashi.Similarly Paparkshe is Papa Rashi.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > If you want to say as per our conveninece we can change

the

> > > > > meaning

> > > > > > > of riksha/rashi/bhavana/bhavas as navamsha then i

cannot say

> > > > > > > anything.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > I can only respect your views.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Respect

> > > > > > > Pradeep

> > > > > > >

> > > <%40>

> > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> > > > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > I will tell you why that happens. You begin with

quoting

> > > > > Parashara

> > > > > > > and

> > > > > > > > then give a sutra from Jaimini as being said by

Parashara.

> > > > > > > > Interpretation of sutras is not the easiest of the

things,

> > > more

> > > > > so

> > > > > > > with

> > > > > > > > Jaimini's Upadesha sutras. That the sutras use

KaTaPaYaadi

> > > > > > > encryption

> > > > > > > > makes them even more difficult to interpret. I am

sure you

> > > have

> > > > > > > noticed

> > > > > > > > this when Sreenadh interpreted the KaTaPaYaadi Varga

in a

> > > wrong

> > > > > > > fashion.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Then there is your insistence to let Sanskrit grammar

give

> > > a go

> > > > > by

> > > > > > > if

> > > > > > > > that can make interpretation of a shloka or sutra fit

your

> > > > > > > proposition.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Any of the Shodasha Vargas of a rasi can be referred

to as

> > > > > Varga,

> > > > > > > but as

> > > > > > > > far as I know in astrology, when one talks of Varga,

without

> > > > > > > qualifying

> > > > > > > > it, or Amshas that generally refers to navamsha or

> > > > > Dwadashaamsha.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Another reason that we can not agree, or seem to

agree, is

> > > that

> > > > > > > you are

> > > > > > > > reluctant to call a navamsha by the nomenclature

navamsha

> > > rasi.

> > > > > > > This

> > > > > > > > makes it difficult to convey what I mean to say in

English

> > > as

> > > > > that

> > > > > > > is

> > > > > > > > the language of the net and which both of us know. Now

> > > since you

> > > > > > > do not

> > > > > > > > want to use the word Mesha navamsha as Mesha is a

rashi and

> > > by

> > > > > > > your

> > > > > > > > logic it can not be a navamsha, it becomes difficult

to

> > > convey

> > > > > > > what I

> > > > > > > > understand by the texts.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > I will like to draw your attention to the literal

meaning

> > > of the

> > > > > > > word

> > > > > > > > rasi. It means a heap and nothing more. In astrology

since

> > > it

> > > > > > > > encompasses many stars that make up a nakshatra the

1/12th

> > > > > > > division of

> > > > > > > > the zodiac is called a Rasi. Or at least this is my

> > > > > understanding

> > > > > > > of the

> > > > > > > > reason of using the word rasi for the 1/12th division

of the

> > > > > > > zodiac.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > I do not agree that by Chandra in Guru Varga it is

meant

> > > that

> > > > > > > Varga of

> > > > > > > > Chandra is being seen. To me we are talking about is

whether

> > > > > > > Chandra is

> > > > > > > > falling in the Varga of Guru in which ever rasi he is

> > > occupying.

> > > > > > > So in

> > > > > > > > Navamsha we see whether Chandra is occupying Pisces or

> > > > > Sagittarius

> > > > > > > > navamsha. I also do not agree that there are Vargas of

> > > Chandra

> > > > > or

> > > > > > > of any

> > > > > > > > planet for that matter. The 16 Vargas that Parashara

talks

> > > about

> > > > > > > are

> > > > > > > > that of a Rasi, beginning from the Rashi itself.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > If the Vargas are not owned by different planets,

pray why

> > > does

> > > > > > > the sage

> > > > > > > > tell us to see occupation of a friend, own etc. Varga

to

> > > assess

> > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > strength of a planet in the Varga concerned?

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > I have interacted with many astrologers of

yesteryears (with

> > > > > > > respect to

> > > > > > > > my age group) and have never found them claiming the

Vargas

> > > to

> > > > > be

> > > > > > > of

> > > > > > > > only lagna and planets.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > If you insist that sage Parashara gave the SU. 52.-

" Tatra

> > > > > > > bhrigwongaraka

> > > > > > > > varge paradarikaha " , perhaps you are referring to

some

> > > edition

> > > > > of

> > > > > > > BPHS

> > > > > > > > that I do not have. However I do have that in the

umpteen

> > > > > > > different

> > > > > > > > texts on Jaimini that I do have in my library. And by

the

> > > way,

> > > > > > > some

> > > > > > > > scholars have interpreted that to mean 9th from

Karakamsha

> > > and

> > > > > not

> > > > > > > the 2nd.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > I do not agree that a graha can simultaneously occupy

the

> > > Varga

> > > > > of

> > > > > > > both

> > > > > > > > Venus and Mars, simultaneously, as is being suggested

> > > whether in

> > > > > > > rasi or

> > > > > > > > in any of the Vargas. It could only occupy one or the

other.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > I have seen you arguing in favor of looking at the

> > > Shadvargas of

> > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > grahas Venus and Mars. I would like you to look at

all the

> > > six

> > > > > > > charts

> > > > > > > > whose Vargas together are referred as Shadvargas and

try to

> > > find

> > > > > > > out

> > > > > > > > whether they do indeed contain the 6 Vargas of Venus

and 6

> > > > > Vargas

> > > > > > > or

> > > > > > > > Mars. I am sure that you will find them to contain

only 5

> > > Vargas

> > > > > > > each of

> > > > > > > > the grahas. Once you confirm this by looking at the 6

Vargas

> > > > > your

> > > > > > > self,

> > > > > > > > tell me how one can look at Shadvargas of Venus or

Mars as

> > > is

> > > > > > > being

> > > > > > > > suggested to be the interpretation of the sutra that

you are

> > > > > > > referring to.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > You may also be interested to know that Parashara

talks of

> > > AK

> > > > > > > falling in

> > > > > > > > the Varga of Chandra, Mars or Venus also having the

roving

> > > eye

> > > > > on

> > > > > > > others

> > > > > > > > wives. So the combination of Venus and Mars being the

only

> > > one

> > > > > > > giving

> > > > > > > > the roving eye for other's wives, that you are

advancing as

> > > a

> > > > > > > standalone

> > > > > > > > principle, may not, necessarily, be the way the sage

looked

> > > at

> > > > > > > their

> > > > > > > > interpretation.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Take care,

> > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Those were written by me.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > I am very dissappointed to see that ,inspite of

repeating

> > > > > numerus

> > > > > > > > > times,you are unable to get what i am saying.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > I am not talking about rashis lorded by shukra or

Mars

> > > here.I

> > > > > am

> > > > > > > > > talking about the shadvargas vargas of mars and

shukra.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Pls tell me what is the meaning of shadvargas or

simply

> > > Varga

> > > > > of

> > > > > > > > > lagna.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > It is the rashi in which lagna is placed.The

navamshaka of

> > > > > > > > > Lagna,Trimshamshaka of Lagna etc.Can we see any

lordship

> > > as

> > > > > you

> > > > > > > > > say.Lagna does not own any rashi.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Similarly when we say vargas of Venus -It means

Rashi of

> > > > > > > > > Venus,Hora,navamshaka,drekkana,trimshamshaka etc.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Shadvarga is never the rashi owned by a planet.Then

Lagna

> > > can

> > > > > > > never

> > > > > > > > > have shadvarga.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > On the other hand if we say,Chandra in Guru Varga -

We

> > > are not

> > > > > > > seeing

> > > > > > > > > the shadvarga of Guru,but that of chandra.Is chandra

> > > placed in

> > > > > > > Guru

> > > > > > > > > Rashi?Is Chandra navamshaka in Guru Rashi.Is Chandra

> > > > > > > Trimshamshaka in

> > > > > > > > > Guru Rashi etc is what we check.If so chandras

vargas

> > > fall in

> > > > > > > guru

> > > > > > > > > rashis or we say chandra is in guruvargas.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > For the same reason schoplars of yesteryears always

say

> > > Vargas

> > > > > > > are

> > > > > > > > > for our natal Lagna and Planets.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > On the other hand you are taking them as owned by a

> > > > > planet.Every

> > > > > > > > > shadvarga that derive is like that.You may check

this with

> > > > > shri

> > > > > > > > > Narasimha,how he is deriving it for his software.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > For the same reason Bhrigu and Angara can have Varga

> > > together

> > > > > in

> > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > Rashi which is 2nd from Karakamsha.Sage clearly

talks

> > > about

> > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > vargas from both.Moreover the next shloka is

talking about

> > > > > Mars

> > > > > > > and

> > > > > > > > > Venus together or aspecting the 2nd from karakamsha.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > On the other hand if we go by your explanation,we

have to

> > > opt

> > > > > for

> > > > > > > > > just one among shukra or Mars which is not

proper.Their

> > > Joint

> > > > > > > > > influence creates sexual drive.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > I request you to kindly read this with care.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Rspect

> > > > > > > > > Pradeep

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > <%40>

> > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > <%40>,

Chandrashekhar

> > > > > > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > The below remarks are not from my mail at all. I

do not

> > > know

> > > > > > > why

> > > > > > > > > you

> > > > > > > > > > think I would write that. I am sure you know that

this

> > > is

> > > > > not

> > > > > > > my

> > > > > > > > > style

> > > > > > > > > > of writing at all.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > " >From my experience -Mars + Venus creates certin

> > > > > behaviour.I

> > > > > > > feel

> > > > > > > > > you

> > > > > > > > > > too would have experienced this.Why are you going

for

> > > the

> > > > > varga

> > > > > > > > > owned by

> > > > > > > > > > just one of them and that too without a planetary

link

> > > is

> > > > > > > really

> > > > > > > > > > worrying me.Shri Rath has translated so,i

agree.But i

> > > have

> > > > > an

> > > > > > > > > > inner feeling that Shri Rath will definitely

correct

> > > this

> > > > > for

> > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > benfit

> > > > > > > > > > of jyotish community. "

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > As to why I said they could not be having their

Vargas

> > > > > > > together in

> > > > > > > > > one

> > > > > > > > > > rasi or Bhava does not need any deeper

explanation. If

> > > you

> > > > > are

> > > > > > > > > looking

> > > > > > > > > > at the 2nd from Karakamsha in the rasi chart, as

you

> > > think

> > > > > is

> > > > > > > > > right, you

> > > > > > > > > > could not have both Mesha and Vrishabha or Tula

and

> > > > > Vrishchika

> > > > > > > rasi

> > > > > > > > > in

> > > > > > > > > > 2nd from the Karakamsha, is that not so?

Similarly if in

> > > > > > > navamsha

> > > > > > > > > chart

> > > > > > > > > > the 2nd from Karakamsha is to be seen, the 2nd

could be

> > > not

> > > > > > > both

> > > > > > > > > navamshas.

> > > > > > > > > > Take care,

> > > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > I though you meant so.Because in subsequent

lines we

> > > can

> > > > > see

> > > > > > > > > Swamsha

> > > > > > > > > > > and Karakamsha being used for the same

purpose.But if

> > > you

> > > > > > > think

> > > > > > > > > > > there are other places where swamsha is used

for say

> > > > > > > > > Lagnamsha ,then

> > > > > > > > > > > i can trust you if you can point me to that.

This

> > > should

> > > > > not

> > > > > > > be a

> > > > > > > > > > > problem and in no way it will affect us.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Venus and Mars can ofcourse have their Vargas

in a

> > > single

> > > > > > > rashi or

> > > > > > > > > > > Bhava.Venus can have navamsha there,Mars can

have

> > > navamsha

> > > > > > > > > > > there,Venus can have Trimshamsha there,Mars can

have

> > > > > > > Trimshamsha

> > > > > > > > > > > there,they both can have drekkana there etc etc.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Thus sage is talking about Bhrigu and Angara

both (as

> > > you

> > > > > > > have

> > > > > > > > > > > identified gramattically) having varga there

and it is

> > > > > very

> > > > > > > much

> > > > > > > > > > > possible.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > If you note the next line -Sage is talking

about both

> > > > > Venus

> > > > > > > and

> > > > > > > > > Mars

> > > > > > > > > > > joining or aspecting the 2nd from Karakamsha.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > >From my experience -Mars + Venus creates certin

> > > > > behaviour.I

> > > > > > > feel

> > > > > > > > > you

> > > > > > > > > > > too would have experienced this.Why are you

going for

> > > the

> > > > > > > varga

> > > > > > > > > > > owned by just one of them and that too without a

> > > planetary

> > > > > > > link is

> > > > > > > > > > > really worrying me.Shri Rath has translated so,i

> > > > > agree.But i

> > > > > > > have

> > > > > > > > > an

> > > > > > > > > > > inner feeling that Shri Rath will definitely

correct

> > > this

> > > > > > > for the

> > > > > > > > > > > benfit of jyotish community.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > I am surprised as to why you say so.That they

cannot

> > > have

> > > > > > > > > together.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Respect

> > > > > > > > > > > Pardeep

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > <%40>

> > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > <%40>,

> > > Chandrashekhar

> > > > > > > > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > I have never said that I do not think that

Swamsha

> > > and

> > > > > > > > > Karakamsha

> > > > > > > > > > > are

> > > > > > > > > > > > different where the context demands so. At

the same

> > > > > time I

> > > > > > > do

> > > > > > > > > not

> > > > > > > > > > > think

> > > > > > > > > > > > grammar can be put to rest to in the name of

> > > context,

> > > > > > > without

> > > > > > > > > some

> > > > > > > > > > > sound

> > > > > > > > > > > > reason.

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > Of course if you want contextual translation

only,

> > > then

> > > > > > > one can

> > > > > > > > > > > > certainly say that the " Meshadi raashige

swaamshe "

> > > can

> > > > > > > always be

> > > > > > > > > > > > translated as " Falling in Mesha navamsha in

Mesha

> > > rasi

> > > > > > > etc. " .

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > By the way " Tatra Bhrigwonkaraka Varge " ,

that you

> > > > > > > mention, does

> > > > > > > > > > > not

> > > > > > > > > > > > mean varga of both Venus and mars, but of

varga of

> > > > > Venus OR

> > > > > > > > > Mars,

> > > > > > > > > > > due to

> > > > > > > > > > > > the grammar only. varga of two planets can

not fall

> > > in

> > > > > one

> > > > > > > > > > > > bhava/amsha/rasi whether in rasi or Navamsha

or any

> > > > > other

> > > > > > > chart.

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > Take care,

> > > > > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Grammatically,what you are saying is also

true.

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > But Jyotish defintions play a preceding

role in

> > > > > choosing

> > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > grammatical meaning.

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > For example one meaning of labhe ,Swamshe

etc is

> > > in

> > > > > the

> > > > > > > 11th

> > > > > > > > > in

> > > > > > > > > > > > > swamsha etc.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > But if we go by that we will definitely

translate

> > > > > > > swamshe in

> > > > > > > > > > > meshadi

> > > > > > > > > > > > > rashige as ''in Swamsha'',thereby

translating it

> > > as

> > > > > one

> > > > > > > full

> > > > > > > > > > > > > chart.This as you too agree,then cannot

pass the

> > > > > test,of

> > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > subsequent shlokas.I understand gladly that

you

> > > too

> > > > > > > agree that

> > > > > > > > > > > > > swamsha and karakamsha are the same.

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > So the context decides plural/singular and

not

> > > > > > > necessarily

> > > > > > > > > > > the ''E''

> > > > > > > > > > > > > as you have rightly mentioned.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > But in essence what i want to say is ''E''

does

> > > not

> > > > > > > always

> > > > > > > > > > > mean ''in

> > > > > > > > > > > > > the'' as you have interpreted.Labheshe is an

> > > > > > > example.Karake

> > > > > > > > > is an

> > > > > > > > > > > > > example.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Thus it can very well mean Varga of Shukra

and

> > > Mars-

> > > > > > > which can

> > > > > > > > > > > then be

> > > > > > > > > > > > > six vargas or one varga.(Not lordship)

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Tatra Bhrigwonkaraka Varge -

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Tatra -(There) In the second from Karakamsha

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Varga or Vargas of Venus and Mars

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Now why should we need two qualifiesrs for

> > > destination

> > > > > (1)

> > > > > > > In

> > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > 2nd

> > > > > > > > > > > > > from karakamsha 2)in the vargas of?)-if we

had

> > > another

> > > > > > > planet

> > > > > > > > > > > then

> > > > > > > > > > > > > your interpretation is right.That planet

will

> > > answer

> > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > question -

> > > > > > > > > > > > > who is in the vargas of ?

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Similarly - Swamshad dhane Shukrar

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Swamshad dhane is already pointing to

destination-

> > > why

> > > > > > > should

> > > > > > > > > we

> > > > > > > > > > > need

> > > > > > > > > > > > > another ''in the'' vargas of.

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > On the other hand if we say in the 2nd from

> > > > > karakamsha if

> > > > > > > > > varga

> > > > > > > > > > > of

> > > > > > > > > > > > > mars and venus are present,it fits in

> > > > > > > grammatically.Moreover

> > > > > > > > > as

> > > > > > > > > > > i had

> > > > > > > > > > > > > mentioned rashi lordship without planetary

link

> > > > > > > > > (placement/amsha

> > > > > > > > > > > etc)

> > > > > > > > > > > > > is too general.

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Respect

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Pradeep

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > <%40>

> > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > <%40>,

> > > > > Chandrashekhar

> > > > > > > > > > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > I may be wrong but the " E " by itself does

not

> > > point

> > > > > to

> > > > > > > > > plural.

> > > > > > > > > > > It

> > > > > > > > > > > > > is the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > word Shadvarga indicating 6 Vargas that

is one

> > > group

> > > > > > > > > (though it

> > > > > > > > > > > > > contains

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > more than one unit) and so " Varge " , the

> > > singular is

> > > > > > > used

> > > > > > > > > with

> > > > > > > > > > > that.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > The

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > " E " means " in " . I would be happy if an

example

> > > > > > > of " Varge "

> > > > > > > > > being

> > > > > > > > > > > > > plural

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > can be given.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > I do not at all think that Vargaka or

Varga is

> > > > > > > singular and

> > > > > > > > > > > Vargake

> > > > > > > > > > > > > or

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Varge is plural, at all. Both the manner

of

> > > using

> > > > > the

> > > > > > > word

> > > > > > > > > only

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > indicates singular. it is no use

projecting

> > > what is

> > > > > > > clearly

> > > > > > > > > > > Saptami

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > vibhakti and singular as being a plural

word. If

> > > > > Varga

> > > > > > > is

> > > > > > > > > to be

> > > > > > > > > > > > > used as

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > dvivachana it may become " VargyoH "

or " VargeSu "

> > > (for

> > > > > > > > > > > bahuvachan)

> > > > > > > > > > > > > and not

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Varge. Perhaps some Sanskrit scholar on

the list

> > > > > would

> > > > > > > like

> > > > > > > > > to

> > > > > > > > > > > > > comment

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > on this.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > So, much as I would like it to resolve,

the

> > > issue

> > > > > > > remains

> > > > > > > > > > > > > unresolved.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I will give you a relevant example to

explain

> > > how

> > > > > > > VarGE

> > > > > > > > > can

> > > > > > > > > > > be

> > > > > > > > > > > > > used in

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > context of plural.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Lagna Shad-VargaKE - Is pointing to all

> > > vargas -

> > > > > > > > > Plural.You

> > > > > > > > > > > may

> > > > > > > > > > > > > note

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that the grammatical ending is

with ''E''

> > > showing

> > > > > > > plurals

> > > > > > > > > > > too can

> > > > > > > > > > > > > be

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > expressed with such an ending.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Now from Vrishamsha''Ka'' and Tulamsha

> > > example we

> > > > > can

> > > > > > > > > > > conclude

> > > > > > > > > > > > > that

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > VargaKA and VarGA can be used for the

same

> > > > > purpose in

> > > > > > > > > > > Ekavachan or

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > singular form and VargaKE and VarGE can

be

> > > used

> > > > > for

> > > > > > > > > > > Bahuvachan or

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Plural form.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I hope this may help us in resolving our

> > > issue.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Respect

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pradeep

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

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

------

> > > ----

> > > > > ---

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

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

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database:

> > > 269.10.0/886 -

> > > > > > > Release

> > > > > > > > > > > Date:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > 7/4/2007 1:40 PM

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have

been

> > > > > removed]

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

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

------

> > > ----

> > > > > ---

> > > > > > > -

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

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database:

269.10.0/886 -

> > > > > Release

> > > > > > > > > Date:

> > > > > > > > > > > 7/4/2007 1:40 PM

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been

> > > removed]

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

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

------

> > > ----

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

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database:

269.10.0/886 -

> > > Release

> > > > > > > Date:

> > > > > > > > > 7/4/2007 1:40 PM

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been

removed]

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

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

------

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

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.10.0/886 -

Release

> > > > > Date:

> > > > > > > 7/4/2007 1:40 PM

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

[Guest guest]

Dear Satya ji

 

What you see from navamsha can be seen as amshas in rashis from mesha

onwards.But these are feeble as compared to yutis and placements.This

is explained in the case of Bhrigwonkaraka sutra.

 

If you look at navamsha arrangement,you will see tham as Mars+Venus

in the 2nd from Karakamsha.The point to note is even if you look in

rashi or navamsha-the Karakamsha Rashi is the same.The placements are

marked in Rashi chakra,while amshas are marked in navamsha-Rashi

skeleton.Infact both falls in the same skleton,but different kind of

relationship.Aspects can only be seen from placements.This is so

because -if a planet placed in Aries rashi has libra navamsha,in the

navamsha-rashi skeleton we will mark planet in Libra.It says this

planet though in Aries Rashi is linking to Libra rashi.It is just an

amsha rashi sambandha.Similarly another planet can have amsha in the

7th from this.

How do you see aspect from the linked position?Link itslef is showing

a kind of ''aspect''.

 

Regds

Pradeep

 

, " Satya Sai Kolachina "

<skolachi wrote:

>

> Dear Sri Bhaskar,

>

> Seeing Karakamsa exclusively from Rasi alone is a question. I

posted

> earlier (a few days ago in this same thread) my own chart, which

> clearly shows my preferences on deity of worship according to

> Karakamsa position in the navamsa chart; it is not an experimental

> data; it is practical on my own chart. I cannot accept that

> Karakamsa shd be seen only from Rasi chart.

>

> You need to a composite appoach; I know somebody in this thread

> mocked at composite approach earlier; then they shd not do

astrology

> practice. Astrology is a complex subject and one HAS TO DO

composite

> approach. Rigid rules are a clear path to failure; or atleast

> success is questionable.

>

> Best regards,

> Satya S Kolachina

>

> , " Bhaskar " <bhaskar_jyotish@>

> wrote:

> >

> > Drear Chandrasekharji,Pradeepji and other scholars,

> >

> > Please, I could not understand how the karakmsha

> > has to be seen from the Rashi chart, and not

> > from the Navamsha chart. I thought all

> > the wonderful effects of planets placed in various

> > positions from the Karakamsha including Kaivalya,

> > are to be judged from the Karakamsha postion

> > in Navamsha.

> >

> > That means now my Kaivalya is denied to me,

> > as per this new learning.Can some reference wih respect

> > to the ancient shlokas or the ancient authors be

> > given to me for checking this, as this involves my

> > own chart, and have personal interest in learning

> > the actual method, but with pramana.

> >

> > regards,

> > Bhaskar.

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > , Chandrashekhar

> > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > >

> > > Dear Pradeep,

> > >

> > > I see your point of view. anyway even within shadvargas we look

> for the

> > > degree of a planet falling within a certain span of degrees and

> not one

> > > particular bindu.

> > >

> > > I agree that rashi is a Varga and my question is if one can

look

> at

> > > aspects in one Varga why not in other Vargas? I am sure you

know

> that

> > > personally I use navamsha to find only the strength of grahas,

> but

> > there

> > > is no reason to rule out aspects in Navamshas or other charts

> totally.

> > > One of the raj yogas mentioned by Parashara talks of aspect of

> shubha

> > > grahas on the karakamsha and Lagnamsha which should also be

> tenanted by

> > > Shubha grahas, leaving no doubt as to where the aspects are to

> be seen.

> > > And for the record the translation to that effect is by an

> eminent

> > > astrologer who was Professor of astrology in Banaras Hindu

> University.

> > >

> > > Take care,

> > > Chandrashekhar.

> > >

> > >

> > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > >

> > > > Lagna as a bindu was mentioned for driving home the shadvarga

> > > > calculations,if any members were having doubts.For shadvarga

> > > > calculation of planets too we need the bindu or degree of a

> planet

> > > > within a rashi, as you are aware.

> > > >

> > > > We have to look at Rashis.This is so because Rashi (one 30

> degree

> > > > sector ) is the first varga.As this Varga is synonymous with

> Bhava

> > > > houses are analysed w.r to Rashis.

> > > >

> > > > Respect

> > > > Pradeep

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > >

> > > > > If lagna is a bindu a you propose, and nothing more, then

> how can

> > > > it

> > > > > indicate an entire rasi? Now if this is correct, and

> technically

> > > > it is,

> > > > > then by your reckoning there is no need to look at rasis

> too. Is

> > > > that

> > > > > what you mean to say?

> > > > >

> > > > > If shadvargas are not related to the portion falling in the

> lagna

> > > > rasis,

> > > > > which holds the degree of lagna Madhya, then it appears we

> must ask

> > > > the

> > > > > sages to redefine Vargas. I doubt they need our advise.

> > > > >

> > > > > Take care,

> > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > >

> > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > > >

> > > > > > There was a purpose.I just wanted to explain it to the

> members if

> > > > > > some of them are not sure on what shadvarga of lagna is

> and how it

> > > > > > is calculated.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > As you have said Vargas are divisions of a rashi.But

> shadvargas of

> > > > > > Lagna is not the Vargas falling in Lagna.Here lagna is

not

> a

> > > > > > rashi,but a bindu.Vargas are found from a degree.The

> degree of a

> > > > > > planet or degree of lagna.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > As you may know we do notneed six charts to dtermine

> shadvargas of

> > > > > > lagna.All we need is the degree of lagna and the rashi

> rising.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Let us take an example.Lagna is at 11 degrees in dhanu.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Let us find the shadvargas of Lagna with th help of

rising

> rashi

> > > > and

> > > > > > degree.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > 1st Varga - The Rashi in which Lagna bindu is falling -

> Dhanu

> > > > > > 2nd Varga - The Hora in which Lagna bindu is falling - As

> 11

> > > > degrees

> > > > > > falls in the 1st half of dhanu - Surya Hora

> > > > > > 3rd Varga - The drekkana in which Lagna bindu is falling -

 

> As 11

> > > > > > degrees falls in the 2nd 1/3rd of dhanu - Drekkana is

> Mesha.

> > > > > > 4th Varga - As 11 degrees falls in the 3rd

saptamsha ,Lagna

> > > > saptamsha

> > > > > > is Kumbha.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Similraly - Lagna navamsha is Karka,Lagna Trimshamsha is

> dhanu.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Thus the purpose of whole exercise was to say that when

we

> say

> > > > > > shadvargas of Lagna or Mars,it does not mean the rashis

> owned by

> > > > > > Lagna or Mars.But the Rashis on towhich they are

> placed,having

> > > > > > hora,drekkana etc etc.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Vargas of Mars in the 2nd Rashi from karakamsha too is no

> > > > differet.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > There are many meanings,that is why Rashi is called as

> > > > > > Kshethra /Riksha /havana etc.But i don't think sage will

> use the

> > > > > > saword to represent something belonging to same class.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > For example sage will not use ''sva'' to mean 2nd as well

> as

> > > > 3rd.Then

> > > > > > we cannot interpret.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Similarly Rashi and navamsha will not be represented

using

> the

> > > > same

> > > > > > word.Rashi/Kshethra/Riksha/Bhvana/Lagna etc are synonyms

> an ifthey

> > > > > > are used for navamsha then what is the whole purpose

behind

> > > > defintion.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > On the other hand sva was used for iems from different

> classes.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > This wasin mind while making such a statement.I will try

> my best

> > > > to

> > > > > > polish my style of writing.I accept my limitations in

> writing.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Respect

> > > > > > Pradeep

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > <%40>

> > > > > > <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> > > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > I have not understood your question or the intent

behind

> that.

> > > > The

> > > > > > > Vargas are divisions, within a rasi, ruled by different

> grahas.

> > > > So

> > > > > > if

> > > > > > > one wants t look at Vargas falling in lagna the shad

> Vargas will

> > > > > > mean

> > > > > > > the rasi equivalent occurring at lagna position in the 6

> > > > divisional

> > > > > > > charts of Rashi, Hora, Dreshkana, Navamsha,

> Dwaadashamsha and

> > > > > > > Trimshamsha. Or at least this is what I have learnt.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Sages did not use words in vain or context. I agree.

But

> that

> > > > does

> > > > > > not

> > > > > > > mean they used the words to mean only one thing always.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > I never said that the meaning can be changed to suit our

> > > > > > convenience and

> > > > > > > I would request you not to attribute such sentiments to

> me.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > However I do say that word are used in different

> contexts to

> > > > mean

> > > > > > > different things, especially in Sanskrit texts of

> Jyotish. I

> > > > have,

> > > > > > just

> > > > > > > a few minutes back use of " Sva " with different meaning

at

> > > > different

> > > > > > > places by Varaha Mihira to you. I hope you do not also

> attribute

> > > > > > the

> > > > > > > words that you attributed to me to the venerated Varaha

> Mihira.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Take care,

> > > > > > > Chandrashekhar,.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Pls tell me what you mean by shadvargas of lagna.How

> do you

> > > > find

> > > > > > > > them.Do you go by ownership or placement

> > > > > > (Rashi/navamsha/dwadshamsha

> > > > > > > > etc).

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > There are shlokas in Varahamihiras text which

> says ,Okarkshe

> > > > > > > > Purushamshakae.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Which means in Ojarashi and Oja amsha.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > As per me sages will not use any words out of

> context.If he

> > > > wants

> > > > > > to

> > > > > > > > say amsha he will mention it.He will not use Rashi to

> mean as

> > > > > > amsha.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Ojarkshe is Oja Rashi.Similarly Paparkshe is Papa

> Rashi.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > If you want to say as per our conveninece we can

> change the

> > > > > > meaning

> > > > > > > > of riksha/rashi/bhavana/bhavas as navamsha then i

> cannot say

> > > > > > > > anything.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > I can only respect your views.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Respect

> > > > > > > > Pradeep

> > > > > > > >

> > > > <%40>

> > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > <%40>,

Chandrashekhar

> > > > > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > I will tell you why that happens. You begin with

> quoting

> > > > > > Parashara

> > > > > > > > and

> > > > > > > > > then give a sutra from Jaimini as being said by

> Parashara.

> > > > > > > > > Interpretation of sutras is not the easiest of the

> things,

> > > > more

> > > > > > so

> > > > > > > > with

> > > > > > > > > Jaimini's Upadesha sutras. That the sutras use

> KaTaPaYaadi

> > > > > > > > encryption

> > > > > > > > > makes them even more difficult to interpret. I am

> sure you

> > > > have

> > > > > > > > noticed

> > > > > > > > > this when Sreenadh interpreted the KaTaPaYaadi

Varga

> in a

> > > > wrong

> > > > > > > > fashion.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Then there is your insistence to let Sanskrit

> grammar give

> > > > a go

> > > > > > by

> > > > > > > > if

> > > > > > > > > that can make interpretation of a shloka or sutra

> fit your

> > > > > > > > proposition.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Any of the Shodasha Vargas of a rasi can be

referred

> to as

> > > > > > Varga,

> > > > > > > > but as

> > > > > > > > > far as I know in astrology, when one talks of

Varga,

> without

> > > > > > > > qualifying

> > > > > > > > > it, or Amshas that generally refers to navamsha or

> > > > > > Dwadashaamsha.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Another reason that we can not agree, or seem to

> agree, is

> > > > that

> > > > > > > > you are

> > > > > > > > > reluctant to call a navamsha by the nomenclature

> navamsha

> > > > rasi.

> > > > > > > > This

> > > > > > > > > makes it difficult to convey what I mean to say in

> English

> > > > as

> > > > > > that

> > > > > > > > is

> > > > > > > > > the language of the net and which both of us know.

> Now

> > > > since you

> > > > > > > > do not

> > > > > > > > > want to use the word Mesha navamsha as Mesha is a

> rashi and

> > > > by

> > > > > > > > your

> > > > > > > > > logic it can not be a navamsha, it becomes

difficult

> to

> > > > convey

> > > > > > > > what I

> > > > > > > > > understand by the texts.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > I will like to draw your attention to the literal

> meaning

> > > > of the

> > > > > > > > word

> > > > > > > > > rasi. It means a heap and nothing more. In

astrology

> since

> > > > it

> > > > > > > > > encompasses many stars that make up a nakshatra the

> 1/12th

> > > > > > > > division of

> > > > > > > > > the zodiac is called a Rasi. Or at least this is my

> > > > > > understanding

> > > > > > > > of the

> > > > > > > > > reason of using the word rasi for the 1/12th

> division of the

> > > > > > > > zodiac.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > I do not agree that by Chandra in Guru Varga it is

> meant

> > > > that

> > > > > > > > Varga of

> > > > > > > > > Chandra is being seen. To me we are talking about

is

> whether

> > > > > > > > Chandra is

> > > > > > > > > falling in the Varga of Guru in which ever rasi he

is

> > > > occupying.

> > > > > > > > So in

> > > > > > > > > Navamsha we see whether Chandra is occupying Pisces

> or

> > > > > > Sagittarius

> > > > > > > > > navamsha. I also do not agree that there are Vargas

> of

> > > > Chandra

> > > > > > or

> > > > > > > > of any

> > > > > > > > > planet for that matter. The 16 Vargas that

Parashara

> talks

> > > > about

> > > > > > > > are

> > > > > > > > > that of a Rasi, beginning from the Rashi itself.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > If the Vargas are not owned by different planets,

> pray why

> > > > does

> > > > > > > > the sage

> > > > > > > > > tell us to see occupation of a friend, own etc.

> Varga to

> > > > assess

> > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > strength of a planet in the Varga concerned?

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > I have interacted with many astrologers of

> yesteryears (with

> > > > > > > > respect to

> > > > > > > > > my age group) and have never found them claiming

the

> Vargas

> > > > to

> > > > > > be

> > > > > > > > of

> > > > > > > > > only lagna and planets.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > If you insist that sage Parashara gave the SU. 52.-

> " Tatra

> > > > > > > > bhrigwongaraka

> > > > > > > > > varge paradarikaha " , perhaps you are referring to

> some

> > > > edition

> > > > > > of

> > > > > > > > BPHS

> > > > > > > > > that I do not have. However I do have that in the

> umpteen

> > > > > > > > different

> > > > > > > > > texts on Jaimini that I do have in my library. And

> by the

> > > > way,

> > > > > > > > some

> > > > > > > > > scholars have interpreted that to mean 9th from

> Karakamsha

> > > > and

> > > > > > not

> > > > > > > > the 2nd.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > I do not agree that a graha can simultaneously

> occupy the

> > > > Varga

> > > > > > of

> > > > > > > > both

> > > > > > > > > Venus and Mars, simultaneously, as is being

suggested

> > > > whether in

> > > > > > > > rasi or

> > > > > > > > > in any of the Vargas. It could only occupy one or

> the other.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > I have seen you arguing in favor of looking at the

> > > > Shadvargas of

> > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > grahas Venus and Mars. I would like you to look at

> all the

> > > > six

> > > > > > > > charts

> > > > > > > > > whose Vargas together are referred as Shadvargas

and

> try to

> > > > find

> > > > > > > > out

> > > > > > > > > whether they do indeed contain the 6 Vargas of

Venus

> and 6

> > > > > > Vargas

> > > > > > > > or

> > > > > > > > > Mars. I am sure that you will find them to contain

> only 5

> > > > Vargas

> > > > > > > > each of

> > > > > > > > > the grahas. Once you confirm this by looking at the

> 6 Vargas

> > > > > > your

> > > > > > > > self,

> > > > > > > > > tell me how one can look at Shadvargas of Venus or

> Mars as

> > > > is

> > > > > > > > being

> > > > > > > > > suggested to be the interpretation of the sutra

that

> you are

> > > > > > > > referring to.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > You may also be interested to know that Parashara

> talks of

> > > > AK

> > > > > > > > falling in

> > > > > > > > > the Varga of Chandra, Mars or Venus also having the

> roving

> > > > eye

> > > > > > on

> > > > > > > > others

> > > > > > > > > wives. So the combination of Venus and Mars being

> the only

> > > > one

> > > > > > > > giving

> > > > > > > > > the roving eye for other's wives, that you are

> advancing as

> > > > a

> > > > > > > > standalone

> > > > > > > > > principle, may not, necessarily, be the way the

sage

> looked

> > > > at

> > > > > > > > their

> > > > > > > > > interpretation.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Take care,

> > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Those were written by me.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > I am very dissappointed to see that ,inspite of

> repeating

> > > > > > numerus

> > > > > > > > > > times,you are unable to get what i am saying.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > I am not talking about rashis lorded by shukra or

> Mars

> > > > here.I

> > > > > > am

> > > > > > > > > > talking about the shadvargas vargas of mars and

> shukra.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Pls tell me what is the meaning of shadvargas or

> simply

> > > > Varga

> > > > > > of

> > > > > > > > > > lagna.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > It is the rashi in which lagna is placed.The

> navamshaka of

> > > > > > > > > > Lagna,Trimshamshaka of Lagna etc.Can we see any

> lordship

> > > > as

> > > > > > you

> > > > > > > > > > say.Lagna does not own any rashi.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Similarly when we say vargas of Venus -It means

> Rashi of

> > > > > > > > > > Venus,Hora,navamshaka,drekkana,trimshamshaka etc.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Shadvarga is never the rashi owned by a

> planet.Then Lagna

> > > > can

> > > > > > > > never

> > > > > > > > > > have shadvarga.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > On the other hand if we say,Chandra in Guru

Varga -

> We

> > > > are not

> > > > > > > > seeing

> > > > > > > > > > the shadvarga of Guru,but that of chandra.Is

> chandra

> > > > placed in

> > > > > > > > Guru

> > > > > > > > > > Rashi?Is Chandra navamshaka in Guru Rashi.Is

> Chandra

> > > > > > > > Trimshamshaka in

> > > > > > > > > > Guru Rashi etc is what we check.If so chandras

> vargas

> > > > fall in

> > > > > > > > guru

> > > > > > > > > > rashis or we say chandra is in guruvargas.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > For the same reason schoplars of yesteryears

> always say

> > > > Vargas

> > > > > > > > are

> > > > > > > > > > for our natal Lagna and Planets.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > On the other hand you are taking them as owned by

a

> > > > > > planet.Every

> > > > > > > > > > shadvarga that derive is like that.You may check

> this with

> > > > > > shri

> > > > > > > > > > Narasimha,how he is deriving it for his software.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > For the same reason Bhrigu and Angara can have

> Varga

> > > > together

> > > > > > in

> > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > Rashi which is 2nd from Karakamsha.Sage clearly

> talks

> > > > about

> > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > vargas from both.Moreover the next shloka is

> talking about

> > > > > > Mars

> > > > > > > > and

> > > > > > > > > > Venus together or aspecting the 2nd from

> karakamsha.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > On the other hand if we go by your explanation,we

> have to

> > > > opt

> > > > > > for

> > > > > > > > > > just one among shukra or Mars which is not

> proper.Their

> > > > Joint

> > > > > > > > > > influence creates sexual drive.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > I request you to kindly read this with care.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Rspect

> > > > > > > > > > Pradeep

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > <%40>

> > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > <%40>,

> Chandrashekhar

> > > > > > > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > The below remarks are not from my mail at all.

I

> do not

> > > > know

> > > > > > > > why

> > > > > > > > > > you

> > > > > > > > > > > think I would write that. I am sure you know

> that this

> > > > is

> > > > > > not

> > > > > > > > my

> > > > > > > > > > style

> > > > > > > > > > > of writing at all.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > " >From my experience -Mars + Venus creates

certin

> > > > > > behaviour.I

> > > > > > > > feel

> > > > > > > > > > you

> > > > > > > > > > > too would have experienced this.Why are you

> going for

> > > > the

> > > > > > varga

> > > > > > > > > > owned by

> > > > > > > > > > > just one of them and that too without a

> planetary link

> > > > is

> > > > > > > > really

> > > > > > > > > > > worrying me.Shri Rath has translated so,i

> agree.But i

> > > > have

> > > > > > an

> > > > > > > > > > > inner feeling that Shri Rath will definitely

> correct

> > > > this

> > > > > > for

> > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > benfit

> > > > > > > > > > > of jyotish community. "

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > As to why I said they could not be having their

> Vargas

> > > > > > > > together in

> > > > > > > > > > one

> > > > > > > > > > > rasi or Bhava does not need any deeper

> explanation. If

> > > > you

> > > > > > are

> > > > > > > > > > looking

> > > > > > > > > > > at the 2nd from Karakamsha in the rasi chart,

as

> you

> > > > think

> > > > > > is

> > > > > > > > > > right, you

> > > > > > > > > > > could not have both Mesha and Vrishabha or Tula

> and

> > > > > > Vrishchika

> > > > > > > > rasi

> > > > > > > > > > in

> > > > > > > > > > > 2nd from the Karakamsha, is that not so?

> Similarly if in

> > > > > > > > navamsha

> > > > > > > > > > chart

> > > > > > > > > > > the 2nd from Karakamsha is to be seen, the 2nd

> could be

> > > > not

> > > > > > > > both

> > > > > > > > > > navamshas.

> > > > > > > > > > > Take care,

> > > > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > I though you meant so.Because in subsequent

> lines we

> > > > can

> > > > > > see

> > > > > > > > > > Swamsha

> > > > > > > > > > > > and Karakamsha being used for the same

> purpose.But if

> > > > you

> > > > > > > > think

> > > > > > > > > > > > there are other places where swamsha is used

> for say

> > > > > > > > > > Lagnamsha ,then

> > > > > > > > > > > > i can trust you if you can point me to that.

> This

> > > > should

> > > > > > not

> > > > > > > > be a

> > > > > > > > > > > > problem and in no way it will affect us.

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > Venus and Mars can ofcourse have their Vargas

> in a

> > > > single

> > > > > > > > rashi or

> > > > > > > > > > > > Bhava.Venus can have navamsha there,Mars can

> have

> > > > navamsha

> > > > > > > > > > > > there,Venus can have Trimshamsha there,Mars

> can have

> > > > > > > > Trimshamsha

> > > > > > > > > > > > there,they both can have drekkana there etc

> etc.

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > Thus sage is talking about Bhrigu and Angara

> both (as

> > > > you

> > > > > > > > have

> > > > > > > > > > > > identified gramattically) having varga there

> and it is

> > > > > > very

> > > > > > > > much

> > > > > > > > > > > > possible.

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > If you note the next line -Sage is talking

> about both

> > > > > > Venus

> > > > > > > > and

> > > > > > > > > > Mars

> > > > > > > > > > > > joining or aspecting the 2nd from Karakamsha.

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > >From my experience -Mars + Venus creates

> certin

> > > > > > behaviour.I

> > > > > > > > feel

> > > > > > > > > > you

> > > > > > > > > > > > too would have experienced this.Why are you

> going for

> > > > the

> > > > > > > > varga

> > > > > > > > > > > > owned by just one of them and that too

without

> a

> > > > planetary

> > > > > > > > link is

> > > > > > > > > > > > really worrying me.Shri Rath has translated

> so,i

> > > > > > agree.But i

> > > > > > > > have

> > > > > > > > > > an

> > > > > > > > > > > > inner feeling that Shri Rath will definitely

> correct

> > > > this

> > > > > > > > for the

> > > > > > > > > > > > benfit of jyotish community.

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > I am surprised as to why you say so.That they

> cannot

> > > > have

> > > > > > > > > > together.

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > Respect

> > > > > > > > > > > > Pardeep

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > <%40>

> > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > > <%40>,

> > > > Chandrashekhar

> > > > > > > > > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > I have never said that I do not think that

> Swamsha

> > > > and

> > > > > > > > > > Karakamsha

> > > > > > > > > > > > are

> > > > > > > > > > > > > different where the context demands so. At

> the same

> > > > > > time I

> > > > > > > > do

> > > > > > > > > > not

> > > > > > > > > > > > think

> > > > > > > > > > > > > grammar can be put to rest to in the name of

> > > > context,

> > > > > > > > without

> > > > > > > > > > some

> > > > > > > > > > > > sound

> > > > > > > > > > > > > reason.

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Of course if you want contextual

translation

> only,

> > > > then

> > > > > > > > one can

> > > > > > > > > > > > > certainly say that the " Meshadi raashige

> swaamshe "

> > > > can

> > > > > > > > always be

> > > > > > > > > > > > > translated as " Falling in Mesha navamsha in

> Mesha

> > > > rasi

> > > > > > > > etc. " .

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > By the way " Tatra Bhrigwonkaraka Varge " ,

> that you

> > > > > > > > mention, does

> > > > > > > > > > > > not

> > > > > > > > > > > > > mean varga of both Venus and mars, but of

> varga of

> > > > > > Venus OR

> > > > > > > > > > Mars,

> > > > > > > > > > > > due to

> > > > > > > > > > > > > the grammar only. varga of two planets can

> not fall

> > > > in

> > > > > > one

> > > > > > > > > > > > > bhava/amsha/rasi whether in rasi or

Navamsha

> or any

> > > > > > other

> > > > > > > > chart.

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Take care,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Grammatically,what you are saying is also

> true.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > But Jyotish defintions play a preceding

> role in

> > > > > > choosing

> > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > grammatical meaning.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > For example one meaning of labhe ,Swamshe

> etc is

> > > > in

> > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > 11th

> > > > > > > > > > in

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > swamsha etc.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > But if we go by that we will definitely

> translate

> > > > > > > > swamshe in

> > > > > > > > > > > > meshadi

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > rashige as ''in Swamsha'',thereby

> translating it

> > > > as

> > > > > > one

> > > > > > > > full

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > chart.This as you too agree,then cannot

> pass the

> > > > > > test,of

> > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > subsequent shlokas.I understand gladly

> that you

> > > > too

> > > > > > > > agree that

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > swamsha and karakamsha are the same.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > So the context decides plural/singular

and

> not

> > > > > > > > necessarily

> > > > > > > > > > > > the ''E''

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > as you have rightly mentioned.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > But in essence what i want to say

is ''E''

> does

> > > > not

> > > > > > > > always

> > > > > > > > > > > > mean ''in

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the'' as you have interpreted.Labheshe is

> an

> > > > > > > > example.Karake

> > > > > > > > > > is an

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > example.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thus it can very well mean Varga of

Shukra

> and

> > > > Mars-

> > > > > > > > which can

> > > > > > > > > > > > then be

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > six vargas or one varga.(Not lordship)

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Tatra Bhrigwonkaraka Varge -

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Tatra -(There) In the second from

> Karakamsha

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Varga or Vargas of Venus and Mars

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Now why should we need two qualifiesrs for

> > > > destination

> > > > > > (1)

> > > > > > > > In

> > > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > 2nd

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > from karakamsha 2)in the vargas of?)-if

we

> had

> > > > another

> > > > > > > > planet

> > > > > > > > > > > > then

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > your interpretation is right.That planet

> will

> > > > answer

> > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > question -

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > who is in the vargas of ?

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Similarly - Swamshad dhane Shukrar

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Swamshad dhane is already pointing to

> destination-

> > > > why

> > > > > > > > should

> > > > > > > > > > we

> > > > > > > > > > > > need

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > another ''in the'' vargas of.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > On the other hand if we say in the 2nd

from

> > > > > > karakamsha if

> > > > > > > > > > varga

> > > > > > > > > > > > of

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > mars and venus are present,it fits in

> > > > > > > > grammatically.Moreover

> > > > > > > > > > as

> > > > > > > > > > > > i had

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > mentioned rashi lordship without

planetary

> link

> > > > > > > > > > (placement/amsha

> > > > > > > > > > > > etc)

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > is too general.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Respect

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pradeep

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > <%40>

> > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > <%40>,

> > > > > > Chandrashekhar

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I may be wrong but the " E " by itself

> does not

> > > > point

> > > > > > to

> > > > > > > > > > plural.

> > > > > > > > > > > > It

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > is the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > word Shadvarga indicating 6 Vargas that

> is one

> > > > group

> > > > > > > > > > (though it

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > contains

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > more than one unit) and so " Varge " , the

> > > > singular is

> > > > > > > > used

> > > > > > > > > > with

> > > > > > > > > > > > that.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > The

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > " E " means " in " . I would be happy if an

> example

> > > > > > > > of " Varge "

> > > > > > > > > > being

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > plural

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > can be given.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I do not at all think that Vargaka or

> Varga is

> > > > > > > > singular and

> > > > > > > > > > > > Vargake

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > or

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Varge is plural, at all. Both the

manner

> of

> > > > using

> > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > word

> > > > > > > > > > only

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > indicates singular. it is no use

> projecting

> > > > what is

> > > > > > > > clearly

> > > > > > > > > > > > Saptami

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > vibhakti and singular as being a plural

> word. If

> > > > > > Varga

> > > > > > > > is

> > > > > > > > > > to be

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > used as

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > dvivachana it may become " VargyoH "

> or " VargeSu "

> > > > (for

> > > > > > > > > > > > bahuvachan)

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > and not

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Varge. Perhaps some Sanskrit scholar on

> the list

> > > > > > would

> > > > > > > > like

> > > > > > > > > > to

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > comment

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > on this.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So, much as I would like it to resolve,

> the

> > > > issue

> > > > > > > > remains

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > unresolved.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I will give you a relevant example to

> explain

> > > > how

> > > > > > > > VarGE

> > > > > > > > > > can

> > > > > > > > > > > > be

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > used in

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > context of plural.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Lagna Shad-VargaKE - Is pointing to

all

> > > > vargas -

> > > > > > > > > > Plural.You

> > > > > > > > > > > > may

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > note

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that the grammatical ending is

> with ''E''

> > > > showing

> > > > > > > > plurals

> > > > > > > > > > > > too can

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > be

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > expressed with such an ending.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Now from Vrishamsha''Ka'' and Tulamsha

> > > > example we

> > > > > > can

> > > > > > > > > > > > conclude

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > that

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > VargaKA and VarGA can be used for the

> same

> > > > > > purpose in

> > > > > > > > > > > > Ekavachan or

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > singular form and VargaKE and VarGE

> can be

> > > > used

> > > > > > for

> > > > > > > > > > > > Bahuvachan or

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Plural form.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I hope this may help us in resolving

> our

> > > > issue.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Respect

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pradeep

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

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

-

> -------

> > > > ----

> > > > > > ---

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

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

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No virus found in this incoming

> message.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database:

> > > > 269.10.0/886 -

> > > > > > > > Release

> > > > > > > > > > > > Date:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 7/4/2007 1:40 PM

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have

> been

> > > > > > removed]

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

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

-

> -------

> > > > ----

> > > > > > ---

> > > > > > > > -

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

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database:

> 269.10.0/886 -

> > > > > > Release

> > > > > > > > > > Date:

> > > > > > > > > > > > 7/4/2007 1:40 PM

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been

> > > > removed]

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > >

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

-

> -------

> > > > ----

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

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database:

> 269.10.0/886 -

> > > > Release

> > > > > > > > Date:

> > > > > > > > > > 7/4/2007 1:40 PM

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been

> removed]

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

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

-

> -------

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

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.10.0/886 -

> Release

> > > > > > Date:

> > > > > > > > 7/4/2007 1:40 PM

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been

removed]

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

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

-

> ---

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

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.10.0/886 -

> Release

> > > > Date:

> > > > > > 7/4/2007 1:40 PM

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

[Guest guest]

Dear Pradeepji,

 

This is no battle to win arguments, or defeat any one,

or corner someone, which is not my intentions, never was,

and not that type of person.I respect all the hard working

astrologers,those who read the ancient theories , and look

for authenticity, of course are to be respected more.

Here the question is every one has his own approach.

To force my approach on any one using other approach,

and mantaining that my approach is the right one,

and yours is wrong, is wrong.

Which is what most of us are trying to do here.

Whereas in fact, we should say " Okay you be happy

with your approach,I be happy with mines. I consider

my approach as the right one. Period. "

 

Pradeepji, I am still waiting for the pramana to

understand that the " karakamsha is to be seen from

the Rashi Chart " If Shri KN rao sees this from the

rashi Chart, does not make it the Gospel

truth for me.Though I respect him and there must be

some reason for his doing so, and we are not sure

whether he has remained consistent in seeing the same

for all part of his Life, from the Rashi chart, or

ever changed his approach. If we have to keep Shri KN Rao

Sahab as the base, then we also have to accept

the theory of aspects to be seen from the

Navamsha Chart, which I think some member

has given the link (If I am not mistaklen).

 

Another point, if we have to accept the approaches used

by the masters of the Modern day, like Shri KN rao etc.

then why are we looking at shlokas at all or talking about

them in the first place ?

 

regards,

Bhaskar.

 

 

 

, " vijayadas_pradeep "

<vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

>

> Dear Bhaskar ji

>

> It means you were not at all reading the mails exchanged between

> Chandrashekhar ji and me.So many mails.So does it mean ,you were

> replying without reading my mails?

>

> Regds

> Pradeep

>

> , " Bhaskar " <bhaskar_jyotish@>

> wrote:

> >

> > Drear Chandrasekharji,Pradeepji and other scholars,

> >

> > Please, I could not understand how the karakmsha

> > has to be seen from the Rashi chart, and not

> > from the Navamsha chart. I thought all

> > the wonderful effects of planets placed in various

> > positions from the Karakamsha including Kaivalya,

> > are to be judged from the Karakamsha postion

> > in Navamsha.

> >

> > That means now my Kaivalya is denied to me,

> > as per this new learning.Can some reference wih respect

> > to the ancient shlokas or the ancient authors be

> > given to me for checking this, as this involves my

> > own chart, and have personal interest in learning

> > the actual method, but with pramana.

> >

> > regards,

> > Bhaskar.

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > , Chandrashekhar

> > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > >

> > > Dear Pradeep,

> > >

> > > I see your point of view. anyway even within shadvargas we look

> for the

> > > degree of a planet falling within a certain span of degrees and

> not one

> > > particular bindu.

> > >

> > > I agree that rashi is a Varga and my question is if one can look

> at

> > > aspects in one Varga why not in other Vargas? I am sure you know

> that

> > > personally I use navamsha to find only the strength of grahas, but

> > there

> > > is no reason to rule out aspects in Navamshas or other charts

> totally.

> > > One of the raj yogas mentioned by Parashara talks of aspect of

> shubha

> > > grahas on the karakamsha and Lagnamsha which should also be

> tenanted by

> > > Shubha grahas, leaving no doubt as to where the aspects are to be

> seen.

> > > And for the record the translation to that effect is by an

> eminent

> > > astrologer who was Professor of astrology in Banaras Hindu

> University.

> > >

> > > Take care,

> > > Chandrashekhar.

> > >

> > >

> > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > >

> > > > Lagna as a bindu was mentioned for driving home the shadvarga

> > > > calculations,if any members were having doubts.For shadvarga

> > > > calculation of planets too we need the bindu or degree of a

> planet

> > > > within a rashi, as you are aware.

> > > >

> > > > We have to look at Rashis.This is so because Rashi (one 30

> degree

> > > > sector ) is the first varga.As this Varga is synonymous with

> Bhava

> > > > houses are analysed w.r to Rashis.

> > > >

> > > > Respect

> > > > Pradeep

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > >

> > > > > If lagna is a bindu a you propose, and nothing more, then how

> can

> > > > it

> > > > > indicate an entire rasi? Now if this is correct, and

> technically

> > > > it is,

> > > > > then by your reckoning there is no need to look at rasis too.

> Is

> > > > that

> > > > > what you mean to say?

> > > > >

> > > > > If shadvargas are not related to the portion falling in the

> lagna

> > > > rasis,

> > > > > which holds the degree of lagna Madhya, then it appears we

> must ask

> > > > the

> > > > > sages to redefine Vargas. I doubt they need our advise.

> > > > >

> > > > > Take care,

> > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > >

> > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > > >

> > > > > > There was a purpose.I just wanted to explain it to the

> members if

> > > > > > some of them are not sure on what shadvarga of lagna is and

> how it

> > > > > > is calculated.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > As you have said Vargas are divisions of a rashi.But

> shadvargas of

> > > > > > Lagna is not the Vargas falling in Lagna.Here lagna is not a

> > > > > > rashi,but a bindu.Vargas are found from a degree.The degree

> of a

> > > > > > planet or degree of lagna.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > As you may know we do notneed six charts to dtermine

> shadvargas of

> > > > > > lagna.All we need is the degree of lagna and the rashi

> rising.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Let us take an example.Lagna is at 11 degrees in dhanu.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Let us find the shadvargas of Lagna with th help of rising

> rashi

> > > > and

> > > > > > degree.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > 1st Varga - The Rashi in which Lagna bindu is falling -

> Dhanu

> > > > > > 2nd Varga - The Hora in which Lagna bindu is falling - As 11

> > > > degrees

> > > > > > falls in the 1st half of dhanu - Surya Hora

> > > > > > 3rd Varga - The drekkana in which Lagna bindu is falling -

> As 11

> > > > > > degrees falls in the 2nd 1/3rd of dhanu - Drekkana is Mesha.

> > > > > > 4th Varga - As 11 degrees falls in the 3rd saptamsha ,Lagna

> > > > saptamsha

> > > > > > is Kumbha.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Similraly - Lagna navamsha is Karka,Lagna Trimshamsha is

> dhanu.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Thus the purpose of whole exercise was to say that when we

> say

> > > > > > shadvargas of Lagna or Mars,it does not mean the rashis

> owned by

> > > > > > Lagna or Mars.But the Rashis on towhich they are

> placed,having

> > > > > > hora,drekkana etc etc.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Vargas of Mars in the 2nd Rashi from karakamsha too is no

> > > > differet.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > There are many meanings,that is why Rashi is called as

> > > > > > Kshethra /Riksha /havana etc.But i don't think sage will

> use the

> > > > > > saword to represent something belonging to same class.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > For example sage will not use ''sva'' to mean 2nd as well as

> > > > 3rd.Then

> > > > > > we cannot interpret.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Similarly Rashi and navamsha will not be represented using

> the

> > > > same

> > > > > > word.Rashi/Kshethra/Riksha/Bhvana/Lagna etc are synonyms an

> ifthey

> > > > > > are used for navamsha then what is the whole purpose behind

> > > > defintion.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > On the other hand sva was used for iems from different

> classes.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > This wasin mind while making such a statement.I will try my

> best

> > > > to

> > > > > > polish my style of writing.I accept my limitations in

> writing.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Respect

> > > > > > Pradeep

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > <%40>

> > > > > > <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> > > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > I have not understood your question or the intent behind

> that.

> > > > The

> > > > > > > Vargas are divisions, within a rasi, ruled by different

> grahas.

> > > > So

> > > > > > if

> > > > > > > one wants t look at Vargas falling in lagna the shad

> Vargas will

> > > > > > mean

> > > > > > > the rasi equivalent occurring at lagna position in the 6

> > > > divisional

> > > > > > > charts of Rashi, Hora, Dreshkana, Navamsha, Dwaadashamsha

> and

> > > > > > > Trimshamsha. Or at least this is what I have learnt.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Sages did not use words in vain or context. I agree. But

> that

> > > > does

> > > > > > not

> > > > > > > mean they used the words to mean only one thing always.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > I never said that the meaning can be changed to suit our

> > > > > > convenience and

> > > > > > > I would request you not to attribute such sentiments to

> me.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > However I do say that word are used in different contexts

> to

> > > > mean

> > > > > > > different things, especially in Sanskrit texts of

> Jyotish. I

> > > > have,

> > > > > > just

> > > > > > > a few minutes back use of " Sva " with different meaning at

> > > > different

> > > > > > > places by Varaha Mihira to you. I hope you do not also

> attribute

> > > > > > the

> > > > > > > words that you attributed to me to the venerated Varaha

> Mihira.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Take care,

> > > > > > > Chandrashekhar,.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Pls tell me what you mean by shadvargas of lagna.How do

> you

> > > > find

> > > > > > > > them.Do you go by ownership or placement

> > > > > > (Rashi/navamsha/dwadshamsha

> > > > > > > > etc).

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > There are shlokas in Varahamihiras text which

> says ,Okarkshe

> > > > > > > > Purushamshakae.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Which means in Ojarashi and Oja amsha.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > As per me sages will not use any words out of

> context.If he

> > > > wants

> > > > > > to

> > > > > > > > say amsha he will mention it.He will not use Rashi to

> mean as

> > > > > > amsha.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Ojarkshe is Oja Rashi.Similarly Paparkshe is Papa Rashi.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > If you want to say as per our conveninece we can change

> the

> > > > > > meaning

> > > > > > > > of riksha/rashi/bhavana/bhavas as navamsha then i

> cannot say

> > > > > > > > anything.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > I can only respect your views.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Respect

> > > > > > > > Pradeep

> > > > > > > >

> > > > <%40>

> > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> > > > > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > I will tell you why that happens. You begin with

> quoting

> > > > > > Parashara

> > > > > > > > and

> > > > > > > > > then give a sutra from Jaimini as being said by

> Parashara.

> > > > > > > > > Interpretation of sutras is not the easiest of the

> things,

> > > > more

> > > > > > so

> > > > > > > > with

> > > > > > > > > Jaimini's Upadesha sutras. That the sutras use

> KaTaPaYaadi

> > > > > > > > encryption

> > > > > > > > > makes them even more difficult to interpret. I am

> sure you

> > > > have

> > > > > > > > noticed

> > > > > > > > > this when Sreenadh interpreted the KaTaPaYaadi Varga

> in a

> > > > wrong

> > > > > > > > fashion.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Then there is your insistence to let Sanskrit grammar

> give

> > > > a go

> > > > > > by

> > > > > > > > if

> > > > > > > > > that can make interpretation of a shloka or sutra fit

> your

> > > > > > > > proposition.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Any of the Shodasha Vargas of a rasi can be referred

> to as

> > > > > > Varga,

> > > > > > > > but as

> > > > > > > > > far as I know in astrology, when one talks of Varga,

> without

> > > > > > > > qualifying

> > > > > > > > > it, or Amshas that generally refers to navamsha or

> > > > > > Dwadashaamsha.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Another reason that we can not agree, or seem to

> agree, is

> > > > that

> > > > > > > > you are

> > > > > > > > > reluctant to call a navamsha by the nomenclature

> navamsha

> > > > rasi.

> > > > > > > > This

> > > > > > > > > makes it difficult to convey what I mean to say in

> English

> > > > as

> > > > > > that

> > > > > > > > is

> > > > > > > > > the language of the net and which both of us know. Now

> > > > since you

> > > > > > > > do not

> > > > > > > > > want to use the word Mesha navamsha as Mesha is a

> rashi and

> > > > by

> > > > > > > > your

> > > > > > > > > logic it can not be a navamsha, it becomes difficult

> to

> > > > convey

> > > > > > > > what I

> > > > > > > > > understand by the texts.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > I will like to draw your attention to the literal

> meaning

> > > > of the

> > > > > > > > word

> > > > > > > > > rasi. It means a heap and nothing more. In astrology

> since

> > > > it

> > > > > > > > > encompasses many stars that make up a nakshatra the

> 1/12th

> > > > > > > > division of

> > > > > > > > > the zodiac is called a Rasi. Or at least this is my

> > > > > > understanding

> > > > > > > > of the

> > > > > > > > > reason of using the word rasi for the 1/12th division

> of the

> > > > > > > > zodiac.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > I do not agree that by Chandra in Guru Varga it is

> meant

> > > > that

> > > > > > > > Varga of

> > > > > > > > > Chandra is being seen. To me we are talking about is

> whether

> > > > > > > > Chandra is

> > > > > > > > > falling in the Varga of Guru in which ever rasi he is

> > > > occupying.

> > > > > > > > So in

> > > > > > > > > Navamsha we see whether Chandra is occupying Pisces or

> > > > > > Sagittarius

> > > > > > > > > navamsha. I also do not agree that there are Vargas of

> > > > Chandra

> > > > > > or

> > > > > > > > of any

> > > > > > > > > planet for that matter. The 16 Vargas that Parashara

> talks

> > > > about

> > > > > > > > are

> > > > > > > > > that of a Rasi, beginning from the Rashi itself.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > If the Vargas are not owned by different planets,

> pray why

> > > > does

> > > > > > > > the sage

> > > > > > > > > tell us to see occupation of a friend, own etc. Varga

> to

> > > > assess

> > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > strength of a planet in the Varga concerned?

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > I have interacted with many astrologers of

> yesteryears (with

> > > > > > > > respect to

> > > > > > > > > my age group) and have never found them claiming the

> Vargas

> > > > to

> > > > > > be

> > > > > > > > of

> > > > > > > > > only lagna and planets.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > If you insist that sage Parashara gave the SU. 52.-

> " Tatra

> > > > > > > > bhrigwongaraka

> > > > > > > > > varge paradarikaha " , perhaps you are referring to

> some

> > > > edition

> > > > > > of

> > > > > > > > BPHS

> > > > > > > > > that I do not have. However I do have that in the

> umpteen

> > > > > > > > different

> > > > > > > > > texts on Jaimini that I do have in my library. And by

> the

> > > > way,

> > > > > > > > some

> > > > > > > > > scholars have interpreted that to mean 9th from

> Karakamsha

> > > > and

> > > > > > not

> > > > > > > > the 2nd.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > I do not agree that a graha can simultaneously occupy

> the

> > > > Varga

> > > > > > of

> > > > > > > > both

> > > > > > > > > Venus and Mars, simultaneously, as is being suggested

> > > > whether in

> > > > > > > > rasi or

> > > > > > > > > in any of the Vargas. It could only occupy one or the

> other.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > I have seen you arguing in favor of looking at the

> > > > Shadvargas of

> > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > grahas Venus and Mars. I would like you to look at

> all the

> > > > six

> > > > > > > > charts

> > > > > > > > > whose Vargas together are referred as Shadvargas and

> try to

> > > > find

> > > > > > > > out

> > > > > > > > > whether they do indeed contain the 6 Vargas of Venus

> and 6

> > > > > > Vargas

> > > > > > > > or

> > > > > > > > > Mars. I am sure that you will find them to contain

> only 5

> > > > Vargas

> > > > > > > > each of

> > > > > > > > > the grahas. Once you confirm this by looking at the 6

> Vargas

> > > > > > your

> > > > > > > > self,

> > > > > > > > > tell me how one can look at Shadvargas of Venus or

> Mars as

> > > > is

> > > > > > > > being

> > > > > > > > > suggested to be the interpretation of the sutra that

> you are

> > > > > > > > referring to.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > You may also be interested to know that Parashara

> talks of

> > > > AK

> > > > > > > > falling in

> > > > > > > > > the Varga of Chandra, Mars or Venus also having the

> roving

> > > > eye

> > > > > > on

> > > > > > > > others

> > > > > > > > > wives. So the combination of Venus and Mars being the

> only

> > > > one

> > > > > > > > giving

> > > > > > > > > the roving eye for other's wives, that you are

> advancing as

> > > > a

> > > > > > > > standalone

> > > > > > > > > principle, may not, necessarily, be the way the sage

> looked

> > > > at

> > > > > > > > their

> > > > > > > > > interpretation.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Take care,

> > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Those were written by me.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > I am very dissappointed to see that ,inspite of

> repeating

> > > > > > numerus

> > > > > > > > > > times,you are unable to get what i am saying.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > I am not talking about rashis lorded by shukra or

> Mars

> > > > here.I

> > > > > > am

> > > > > > > > > > talking about the shadvargas vargas of mars and

> shukra.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Pls tell me what is the meaning of shadvargas or

> simply

> > > > Varga

> > > > > > of

> > > > > > > > > > lagna.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > It is the rashi in which lagna is placed.The

> navamshaka of

> > > > > > > > > > Lagna,Trimshamshaka of Lagna etc.Can we see any

> lordship

> > > > as

> > > > > > you

> > > > > > > > > > say.Lagna does not own any rashi.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Similarly when we say vargas of Venus -It means

> Rashi of

> > > > > > > > > > Venus,Hora,navamshaka,drekkana,trimshamshaka etc.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Shadvarga is never the rashi owned by a planet.Then

> Lagna

> > > > can

> > > > > > > > never

> > > > > > > > > > have shadvarga.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > On the other hand if we say,Chandra in Guru Varga -

> We

> > > > are not

> > > > > > > > seeing

> > > > > > > > > > the shadvarga of Guru,but that of chandra.Is chandra

> > > > placed in

> > > > > > > > Guru

> > > > > > > > > > Rashi?Is Chandra navamshaka in Guru Rashi.Is Chandra

> > > > > > > > Trimshamshaka in

> > > > > > > > > > Guru Rashi etc is what we check.If so chandras

> vargas

> > > > fall in

> > > > > > > > guru

> > > > > > > > > > rashis or we say chandra is in guruvargas.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > For the same reason schoplars of yesteryears always

> say

> > > > Vargas

> > > > > > > > are

> > > > > > > > > > for our natal Lagna and Planets.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > On the other hand you are taking them as owned by a

> > > > > > planet.Every

> > > > > > > > > > shadvarga that derive is like that.You may check

> this with

> > > > > > shri

> > > > > > > > > > Narasimha,how he is deriving it for his software.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > For the same reason Bhrigu and Angara can have Varga

> > > > together

> > > > > > in

> > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > Rashi which is 2nd from Karakamsha.Sage clearly

> talks

> > > > about

> > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > vargas from both.Moreover the next shloka is

> talking about

> > > > > > Mars

> > > > > > > > and

> > > > > > > > > > Venus together or aspecting the 2nd from karakamsha.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > On the other hand if we go by your explanation,we

> have to

> > > > opt

> > > > > > for

> > > > > > > > > > just one among shukra or Mars which is not

> proper.Their

> > > > Joint

> > > > > > > > > > influence creates sexual drive.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > I request you to kindly read this with care.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Rspect

> > > > > > > > > > Pradeep

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > <%40>

> > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > <%40>,

> Chandrashekhar

> > > > > > > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > The below remarks are not from my mail at all. I

> do not

> > > > know

> > > > > > > > why

> > > > > > > > > > you

> > > > > > > > > > > think I would write that. I am sure you know that

> this

> > > > is

> > > > > > not

> > > > > > > > my

> > > > > > > > > > style

> > > > > > > > > > > of writing at all.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > " >From my experience -Mars + Venus creates certin

> > > > > > behaviour.I

> > > > > > > > feel

> > > > > > > > > > you

> > > > > > > > > > > too would have experienced this.Why are you going

> for

> > > > the

> > > > > > varga

> > > > > > > > > > owned by

> > > > > > > > > > > just one of them and that too without a planetary

> link

> > > > is

> > > > > > > > really

> > > > > > > > > > > worrying me.Shri Rath has translated so,i

> agree.But i

> > > > have

> > > > > > an

> > > > > > > > > > > inner feeling that Shri Rath will definitely

> correct

> > > > this

> > > > > > for

> > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > benfit

> > > > > > > > > > > of jyotish community. "

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > As to why I said they could not be having their

> Vargas

> > > > > > > > together in

> > > > > > > > > > one

> > > > > > > > > > > rasi or Bhava does not need any deeper

> explanation. If

> > > > you

> > > > > > are

> > > > > > > > > > looking

> > > > > > > > > > > at the 2nd from Karakamsha in the rasi chart, as

> you

> > > > think

> > > > > > is

> > > > > > > > > > right, you

> > > > > > > > > > > could not have both Mesha and Vrishabha or Tula

> and

> > > > > > Vrishchika

> > > > > > > > rasi

> > > > > > > > > > in

> > > > > > > > > > > 2nd from the Karakamsha, is that not so?

> Similarly if in

> > > > > > > > navamsha

> > > > > > > > > > chart

> > > > > > > > > > > the 2nd from Karakamsha is to be seen, the 2nd

> could be

> > > > not

> > > > > > > > both

> > > > > > > > > > navamshas.

> > > > > > > > > > > Take care,

> > > > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > I though you meant so.Because in subsequent

> lines we

> > > > can

> > > > > > see

> > > > > > > > > > Swamsha

> > > > > > > > > > > > and Karakamsha being used for the same

> purpose.But if

> > > > you

> > > > > > > > think

> > > > > > > > > > > > there are other places where swamsha is used

> for say

> > > > > > > > > > Lagnamsha ,then

> > > > > > > > > > > > i can trust you if you can point me to that.

> This

> > > > should

> > > > > > not

> > > > > > > > be a

> > > > > > > > > > > > problem and in no way it will affect us.

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > Venus and Mars can ofcourse have their Vargas

> in a

> > > > single

> > > > > > > > rashi or

> > > > > > > > > > > > Bhava.Venus can have navamsha there,Mars can

> have

> > > > navamsha

> > > > > > > > > > > > there,Venus can have Trimshamsha there,Mars can

> have

> > > > > > > > Trimshamsha

> > > > > > > > > > > > there,they both can have drekkana there etc etc.

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > Thus sage is talking about Bhrigu and Angara

> both (as

> > > > you

> > > > > > > > have

> > > > > > > > > > > > identified gramattically) having varga there

> and it is

> > > > > > very

> > > > > > > > much

> > > > > > > > > > > > possible.

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > If you note the next line -Sage is talking

> about both

> > > > > > Venus

> > > > > > > > and

> > > > > > > > > > Mars

> > > > > > > > > > > > joining or aspecting the 2nd from Karakamsha.

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > >From my experience -Mars + Venus creates certin

> > > > > > behaviour.I

> > > > > > > > feel

> > > > > > > > > > you

> > > > > > > > > > > > too would have experienced this.Why are you

> going for

> > > > the

> > > > > > > > varga

> > > > > > > > > > > > owned by just one of them and that too without a

> > > > planetary

> > > > > > > > link is

> > > > > > > > > > > > really worrying me.Shri Rath has translated so,i

> > > > > > agree.But i

> > > > > > > > have

> > > > > > > > > > an

> > > > > > > > > > > > inner feeling that Shri Rath will definitely

> correct

> > > > this

> > > > > > > > for the

> > > > > > > > > > > > benfit of jyotish community.

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > I am surprised as to why you say so.That they

> cannot

> > > > have

> > > > > > > > > > together.

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > Respect

> > > > > > > > > > > > Pardeep

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > <%40>

> > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > > <%40>,

> > > > Chandrashekhar

> > > > > > > > > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > I have never said that I do not think that

> Swamsha

> > > > and

> > > > > > > > > > Karakamsha

> > > > > > > > > > > > are

> > > > > > > > > > > > > different where the context demands so. At

> the same

> > > > > > time I

> > > > > > > > do

> > > > > > > > > > not

> > > > > > > > > > > > think

> > > > > > > > > > > > > grammar can be put to rest to in the name of

> > > > context,

> > > > > > > > without

> > > > > > > > > > some

> > > > > > > > > > > > sound

> > > > > > > > > > > > > reason.

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Of course if you want contextual translation

> only,

> > > > then

> > > > > > > > one can

> > > > > > > > > > > > > certainly say that the " Meshadi raashige

> swaamshe "

> > > > can

> > > > > > > > always be

> > > > > > > > > > > > > translated as " Falling in Mesha navamsha in

> Mesha

> > > > rasi

> > > > > > > > etc. " .

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > By the way " Tatra Bhrigwonkaraka Varge " ,

> that you

> > > > > > > > mention, does

> > > > > > > > > > > > not

> > > > > > > > > > > > > mean varga of both Venus and mars, but of

> varga of

> > > > > > Venus OR

> > > > > > > > > > Mars,

> > > > > > > > > > > > due to

> > > > > > > > > > > > > the grammar only. varga of two planets can

> not fall

> > > > in

> > > > > > one

> > > > > > > > > > > > > bhava/amsha/rasi whether in rasi or Navamsha

> or any

> > > > > > other

> > > > > > > > chart.

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Take care,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Grammatically,what you are saying is also

> true.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > But Jyotish defintions play a preceding

> role in

> > > > > > choosing

> > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > grammatical meaning.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > For example one meaning of labhe ,Swamshe

> etc is

> > > > in

> > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > 11th

> > > > > > > > > > in

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > swamsha etc.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > But if we go by that we will definitely

> translate

> > > > > > > > swamshe in

> > > > > > > > > > > > meshadi

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > rashige as ''in Swamsha'',thereby

> translating it

> > > > as

> > > > > > one

> > > > > > > > full

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > chart.This as you too agree,then cannot

> pass the

> > > > > > test,of

> > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > subsequent shlokas.I understand gladly that

> you

> > > > too

> > > > > > > > agree that

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > swamsha and karakamsha are the same.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > So the context decides plural/singular and

> not

> > > > > > > > necessarily

> > > > > > > > > > > > the ''E''

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > as you have rightly mentioned.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > But in essence what i want to say is ''E''

> does

> > > > not

> > > > > > > > always

> > > > > > > > > > > > mean ''in

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the'' as you have interpreted.Labheshe is an

> > > > > > > > example.Karake

> > > > > > > > > > is an

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > example.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thus it can very well mean Varga of Shukra

> and

> > > > Mars-

> > > > > > > > which can

> > > > > > > > > > > > then be

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > six vargas or one varga.(Not lordship)

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Tatra Bhrigwonkaraka Varge -

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Tatra -(There) In the second from Karakamsha

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Varga or Vargas of Venus and Mars

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Now why should we need two qualifiesrs for

> > > > destination

> > > > > > (1)

> > > > > > > > In

> > > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > 2nd

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > from karakamsha 2)in the vargas of?)-if we

> had

> > > > another

> > > > > > > > planet

> > > > > > > > > > > > then

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > your interpretation is right.That planet

> will

> > > > answer

> > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > question -

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > who is in the vargas of ?

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Similarly - Swamshad dhane Shukrar

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Swamshad dhane is already pointing to

> destination-

> > > > why

> > > > > > > > should

> > > > > > > > > > we

> > > > > > > > > > > > need

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > another ''in the'' vargas of.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > On the other hand if we say in the 2nd from

> > > > > > karakamsha if

> > > > > > > > > > varga

> > > > > > > > > > > > of

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > mars and venus are present,it fits in

> > > > > > > > grammatically.Moreover

> > > > > > > > > > as

> > > > > > > > > > > > i had

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > mentioned rashi lordship without planetary

> link

> > > > > > > > > > (placement/amsha

> > > > > > > > > > > > etc)

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > is too general.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Respect

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pradeep

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > <%40>

> > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > <%40>,

> > > > > > Chandrashekhar

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I may be wrong but the " E " by itself does

> not

> > > > point

> > > > > > to

> > > > > > > > > > plural.

> > > > > > > > > > > > It

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > is the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > word Shadvarga indicating 6 Vargas that

> is one

> > > > group

> > > > > > > > > > (though it

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > contains

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > more than one unit) and so " Varge " , the

> > > > singular is

> > > > > > > > used

> > > > > > > > > > with

> > > > > > > > > > > > that.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > The

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > " E " means " in " . I would be happy if an

> example

> > > > > > > > of " Varge "

> > > > > > > > > > being

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > plural

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > can be given.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I do not at all think that Vargaka or

> Varga is

> > > > > > > > singular and

> > > > > > > > > > > > Vargake

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > or

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Varge is plural, at all. Both the manner

> of

> > > > using

> > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > word

> > > > > > > > > > only

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > indicates singular. it is no use

> projecting

> > > > what is

> > > > > > > > clearly

> > > > > > > > > > > > Saptami

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > vibhakti and singular as being a plural

> word. If

> > > > > > Varga

> > > > > > > > is

> > > > > > > > > > to be

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > used as

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > dvivachana it may become " VargyoH "

> or " VargeSu "

> > > > (for

> > > > > > > > > > > > bahuvachan)

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > and not

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Varge. Perhaps some Sanskrit scholar on

> the list

> > > > > > would

> > > > > > > > like

> > > > > > > > > > to

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > comment

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > on this.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So, much as I would like it to resolve,

> the

> > > > issue

> > > > > > > > remains

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > unresolved.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I will give you a relevant example to

> explain

> > > > how

> > > > > > > > VarGE

> > > > > > > > > > can

> > > > > > > > > > > > be

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > used in

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > context of plural.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Lagna Shad-VargaKE - Is pointing to all

> > > > vargas -

> > > > > > > > > > Plural.You

> > > > > > > > > > > > may

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > note

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that the grammatical ending is

> with ''E''

> > > > showing

> > > > > > > > plurals

> > > > > > > > > > > > too can

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > be

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > expressed with such an ending.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Now from Vrishamsha''Ka'' and Tulamsha

> > > > example we

> > > > > > can

> > > > > > > > > > > > conclude

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > that

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > VargaKA and VarGA can be used for the

> same

> > > > > > purpose in

> > > > > > > > > > > > Ekavachan or

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > singular form and VargaKE and VarGE can

> be

> > > > used

> > > > > > for

> > > > > > > > > > > > Bahuvachan or

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Plural form.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I hope this may help us in resolving our

> > > > issue.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Respect

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pradeep

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

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

> ------

> > > > ----

> > > > > > ---

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

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

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database:

> > > > 269.10.0/886 -

> > > > > > > > Release

> > > > > > > > > > > > Date:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 7/4/2007 1:40 PM

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have

> been

> > > > > > removed]

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

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

> ------

> > > > ----

> > > > > > ---

> > > > > > > > -

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

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database:

> 269.10.0/886 -

> > > > > > Release

> > > > > > > > > > Date:

> > > > > > > > > > > > 7/4/2007 1:40 PM

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been

> > > > removed]

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > >

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

> ------

> > > > ----

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

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database:

> 269.10.0/886 -

> > > > Release

> > > > > > > > Date:

> > > > > > > > > > 7/4/2007 1:40 PM

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been

> removed]

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

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

> ------

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

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.10.0/886 -

> Release

> > > > > > Date:

> > > > > > > > 7/4/2007 1:40 PM

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

[Guest guest]

Dear Shri Bhaskar ji

 

One clarification:

 

Shri KN Rao did say that astrologer must read Rashi chart as prime

importance. But he supported the use of D charts (including navamsa)

and did consider yogas / aspects etc in the interpretation model.

 

So let us not quote Shri Rao in partial sense. It may be misleading.

 

In previous thread - Shri Satya quoted the example of D chart (d10),

where Shri rao has considered - it as seperate chakra with aspects /

bhava etc.

 

regards / Prafulla

, " Bhaskar " <bhaskar_jyotish

wrote:

>

> Dear Pradeepji,

>

> This is no battle to win arguments, or defeat any one,

> or corner someone, which is not my intentions, never was,

> and not that type of person.I respect all the hard working

> astrologers,those who read the ancient theories , and look

> for authenticity, of course are to be respected more.

> Here the question is every one has his own approach.

> To force my approach on any one using other approach,

> and mantaining that my approach is the right one,

> and yours is wrong, is wrong.

> Which is what most of us are trying to do here.

> Whereas in fact, we should say " Okay you be happy

> with your approach,I be happy with mines. I consider

> my approach as the right one. Period. "

>

> Pradeepji, I am still waiting for the pramana to

> understand that the " karakamsha is to be seen from

> the Rashi Chart " If Shri KN rao sees this from the

> rashi Chart, does not make it the Gospel

> truth for me.Though I respect him and there must be

> some reason for his doing so, and we are not sure

> whether he has remained consistent in seeing the same

> for all part of his Life, from the Rashi chart, or

> ever changed his approach. If we have to keep Shri KN Rao

> Sahab as the base, then we also have to accept

> the theory of aspects to be seen from the

> Navamsha Chart, which I think some member

> has given the link (If I am not mistaklen).

>

> Another point, if we have to accept the approaches used

> by the masters of the Modern day, like Shri KN rao etc.

> then why are we looking at shlokas at all or talking about

> them in the first place ?

>

> regards,

> Bhaskar.

>

>

>

> , " vijayadas_pradeep "

> <vijayadas_pradeep@> wrote:

> >

> > Dear Bhaskar ji

> >

> > It means you were not at all reading the mails exchanged between

> > Chandrashekhar ji and me.So many mails.So does it mean ,you were

> > replying without reading my mails?

> >

> > Regds

> > Pradeep

> >

> > , " Bhaskar " <bhaskar_jyotish@>

> > wrote:

> > >

> > > Drear Chandrasekharji,Pradeepji and other scholars,

> > >

> > > Please, I could not understand how the karakmsha

> > > has to be seen from the Rashi chart, and not

> > > from the Navamsha chart. I thought all

> > > the wonderful effects of planets placed in various

> > > positions from the Karakamsha including Kaivalya,

> > > are to be judged from the Karakamsha postion

> > > in Navamsha.

> > >

> > > That means now my Kaivalya is denied to me,

> > > as per this new learning.Can some reference wih respect

> > > to the ancient shlokas or the ancient authors be

> > > given to me for checking this, as this involves my

> > > own chart, and have personal interest in learning

> > > the actual method, but with pramana.

> > >

> > > regards,

> > > Bhaskar.

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > , Chandrashekhar

> > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > >

> > > > I see your point of view. anyway even within shadvargas we look

> > for the

> > > > degree of a planet falling within a certain span of degrees and

> > not one

> > > > particular bindu.

> > > >

> > > > I agree that rashi is a Varga and my question is if one can look

> > at

> > > > aspects in one Varga why not in other Vargas? I am sure you know

> > that

> > > > personally I use navamsha to find only the strength of grahas, but

> > > there

> > > > is no reason to rule out aspects in Navamshas or other charts

> > totally.

> > > > One of the raj yogas mentioned by Parashara talks of aspect of

> > shubha

> > > > grahas on the karakamsha and Lagnamsha which should also be

> > tenanted by

> > > > Shubha grahas, leaving no doubt as to where the aspects are to be

> > seen.

> > > > And for the record the translation to that effect is by an

> > eminent

> > > > astrologer who was Professor of astrology in Banaras Hindu

> > University.

> > > >

> > > > Take care,

> > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > >

> > > > > Lagna as a bindu was mentioned for driving home the shadvarga

> > > > > calculations,if any members were having doubts.For shadvarga

> > > > > calculation of planets too we need the bindu or degree of a

> > planet

> > > > > within a rashi, as you are aware.

> > > > >

> > > > > We have to look at Rashis.This is so because Rashi (one 30

> > degree

> > > > > sector ) is the first varga.As this Varga is synonymous with

> > Bhava

> > > > > houses are analysed w.r to Rashis.

> > > > >

> > > > > Respect

> > > > > Pradeep

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > > >

> > > > > > If lagna is a bindu a you propose, and nothing more, then how

> > can

> > > > > it

> > > > > > indicate an entire rasi? Now if this is correct, and

> > technically

> > > > > it is,

> > > > > > then by your reckoning there is no need to look at rasis too.

> > Is

> > > > > that

> > > > > > what you mean to say?

> > > > > >

> > > > > > If shadvargas are not related to the portion falling in the

> > lagna

> > > > > rasis,

> > > > > > which holds the degree of lagna Madhya, then it appears we

> > must ask

> > > > > the

> > > > > > sages to redefine Vargas. I doubt they need our advise.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Take care,

> > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > There was a purpose.I just wanted to explain it to the

> > members if

> > > > > > > some of them are not sure on what shadvarga of lagna is and

> > how it

> > > > > > > is calculated.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > As you have said Vargas are divisions of a rashi.But

> > shadvargas of

> > > > > > > Lagna is not the Vargas falling in Lagna.Here lagna is not a

> > > > > > > rashi,but a bindu.Vargas are found from a degree.The degree

> > of a

> > > > > > > planet or degree of lagna.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > As you may know we do notneed six charts to dtermine

> > shadvargas of

> > > > > > > lagna.All we need is the degree of lagna and the rashi

> > rising.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Let us take an example.Lagna is at 11 degrees in dhanu.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Let us find the shadvargas of Lagna with th help of rising

> > rashi

> > > > > and

> > > > > > > degree.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > 1st Varga - The Rashi in which Lagna bindu is falling -

> > Dhanu

> > > > > > > 2nd Varga - The Hora in which Lagna bindu is falling - As 11

> > > > > degrees

> > > > > > > falls in the 1st half of dhanu - Surya Hora

> > > > > > > 3rd Varga - The drekkana in which Lagna bindu is falling -

> > As 11

> > > > > > > degrees falls in the 2nd 1/3rd of dhanu - Drekkana is Mesha.

> > > > > > > 4th Varga - As 11 degrees falls in the 3rd saptamsha ,Lagna

> > > > > saptamsha

> > > > > > > is Kumbha.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Similraly - Lagna navamsha is Karka,Lagna Trimshamsha is

> > dhanu.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Thus the purpose of whole exercise was to say that when we

> > say

> > > > > > > shadvargas of Lagna or Mars,it does not mean the rashis

> > owned by

> > > > > > > Lagna or Mars.But the Rashis on towhich they are

> > placed,having

> > > > > > > hora,drekkana etc etc.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Vargas of Mars in the 2nd Rashi from karakamsha too is no

> > > > > differet.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > There are many meanings,that is why Rashi is called as

> > > > > > > Kshethra /Riksha /havana etc.But i don't think sage will

> > use the

> > > > > > > saword to represent something belonging to same class.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > For example sage will not use ''sva'' to mean 2nd as well as

> > > > > 3rd.Then

> > > > > > > we cannot interpret.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Similarly Rashi and navamsha will not be represented using

> > the

> > > > > same

> > > > > > > word.Rashi/Kshethra/Riksha/Bhvana/Lagna etc are synonyms an

> > ifthey

> > > > > > > are used for navamsha then what is the whole purpose behind

> > > > > defintion.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > On the other hand sva was used for iems from different

> > classes.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > This wasin mind while making such a statement.I will try my

> > best

> > > > > to

> > > > > > > polish my style of writing.I accept my limitations in

> > writing.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Respect

> > > > > > > Pradeep

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> > > > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > I have not understood your question or the intent behind

> > that.

> > > > > The

> > > > > > > > Vargas are divisions, within a rasi, ruled by different

> > grahas.

> > > > > So

> > > > > > > if

> > > > > > > > one wants t look at Vargas falling in lagna the shad

> > Vargas will

> > > > > > > mean

> > > > > > > > the rasi equivalent occurring at lagna position in the 6

> > > > > divisional

> > > > > > > > charts of Rashi, Hora, Dreshkana, Navamsha, Dwaadashamsha

> > and

> > > > > > > > Trimshamsha. Or at least this is what I have learnt.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Sages did not use words in vain or context. I agree. But

> > that

> > > > > does

> > > > > > > not

> > > > > > > > mean they used the words to mean only one thing always.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > I never said that the meaning can be changed to suit our

> > > > > > > convenience and

> > > > > > > > I would request you not to attribute such sentiments to

> > me.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > However I do say that word are used in different contexts

> > to

> > > > > mean

> > > > > > > > different things, especially in Sanskrit texts of

> > Jyotish. I

> > > > > have,

> > > > > > > just

> > > > > > > > a few minutes back use of " Sva " with different meaning at

> > > > > different

> > > > > > > > places by Varaha Mihira to you. I hope you do not also

> > attribute

> > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > words that you attributed to me to the venerated Varaha

> > Mihira.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Take care,

> > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar,.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Pls tell me what you mean by shadvargas of lagna.How do

> > you

> > > > > find

> > > > > > > > > them.Do you go by ownership or placement

> > > > > > > (Rashi/navamsha/dwadshamsha

> > > > > > > > > etc).

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > There are shlokas in Varahamihiras text which

> > says ,Okarkshe

> > > > > > > > > Purushamshakae.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Which means in Ojarashi and Oja amsha.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > As per me sages will not use any words out of

> > context.If he

> > > > > wants

> > > > > > > to

> > > > > > > > > say amsha he will mention it.He will not use Rashi to

> > mean as

> > > > > > > amsha.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Ojarkshe is Oja Rashi.Similarly Paparkshe is Papa Rashi.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > If you want to say as per our conveninece we can change

> > the

> > > > > > > meaning

> > > > > > > > > of riksha/rashi/bhavana/bhavas as navamsha then i

> > cannot say

> > > > > > > > > anything.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > I can only respect your views.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Respect

> > > > > > > > > Pradeep

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> > > > > > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > I will tell you why that happens. You begin with

> > quoting

> > > > > > > Parashara

> > > > > > > > > and

> > > > > > > > > > then give a sutra from Jaimini as being said by

> > Parashara.

> > > > > > > > > > Interpretation of sutras is not the easiest of the

> > things,

> > > > > more

> > > > > > > so

> > > > > > > > > with

> > > > > > > > > > Jaimini's Upadesha sutras. That the sutras use

> > KaTaPaYaadi

> > > > > > > > > encryption

> > > > > > > > > > makes them even more difficult to interpret. I am

> > sure you

> > > > > have

> > > > > > > > > noticed

> > > > > > > > > > this when Sreenadh interpreted the KaTaPaYaadi Varga

> > in a

> > > > > wrong

> > > > > > > > > fashion.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Then there is your insistence to let Sanskrit grammar

> > give

> > > > > a go

> > > > > > > by

> > > > > > > > > if

> > > > > > > > > > that can make interpretation of a shloka or sutra fit

> > your

> > > > > > > > > proposition.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Any of the Shodasha Vargas of a rasi can be referred

> > to as

> > > > > > > Varga,

> > > > > > > > > but as

> > > > > > > > > > far as I know in astrology, when one talks of Varga,

> > without

> > > > > > > > > qualifying

> > > > > > > > > > it, or Amshas that generally refers to navamsha or

> > > > > > > Dwadashaamsha.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Another reason that we can not agree, or seem to

> > agree, is

> > > > > that

> > > > > > > > > you are

> > > > > > > > > > reluctant to call a navamsha by the nomenclature

> > navamsha

> > > > > rasi.

> > > > > > > > > This

> > > > > > > > > > makes it difficult to convey what I mean to say in

> > English

> > > > > as

> > > > > > > that

> > > > > > > > > is

> > > > > > > > > > the language of the net and which both of us know. Now

> > > > > since you

> > > > > > > > > do not

> > > > > > > > > > want to use the word Mesha navamsha as Mesha is a

> > rashi and

> > > > > by

> > > > > > > > > your

> > > > > > > > > > logic it can not be a navamsha, it becomes difficult

> > to

> > > > > convey

> > > > > > > > > what I

> > > > > > > > > > understand by the texts.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > I will like to draw your attention to the literal

> > meaning

> > > > > of the

> > > > > > > > > word

> > > > > > > > > > rasi. It means a heap and nothing more. In astrology

> > since

> > > > > it

> > > > > > > > > > encompasses many stars that make up a nakshatra the

> > 1/12th

> > > > > > > > > division of

> > > > > > > > > > the zodiac is called a Rasi. Or at least this is my

> > > > > > > understanding

> > > > > > > > > of the

> > > > > > > > > > reason of using the word rasi for the 1/12th division

> > of the

> > > > > > > > > zodiac.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > I do not agree that by Chandra in Guru Varga it is

> > meant

> > > > > that

> > > > > > > > > Varga of

> > > > > > > > > > Chandra is being seen. To me we are talking about is

> > whether

> > > > > > > > > Chandra is

> > > > > > > > > > falling in the Varga of Guru in which ever rasi he is

> > > > > occupying.

> > > > > > > > > So in

> > > > > > > > > > Navamsha we see whether Chandra is occupying Pisces or

> > > > > > > Sagittarius

> > > > > > > > > > navamsha. I also do not agree that there are Vargas of

> > > > > Chandra

> > > > > > > or

> > > > > > > > > of any

> > > > > > > > > > planet for that matter. The 16 Vargas that Parashara

> > talks

> > > > > about

> > > > > > > > > are

> > > > > > > > > > that of a Rasi, beginning from the Rashi itself.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > If the Vargas are not owned by different planets,

> > pray why

> > > > > does

> > > > > > > > > the sage

> > > > > > > > > > tell us to see occupation of a friend, own etc. Varga

> > to

> > > > > assess

> > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > strength of a planet in the Varga concerned?

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > I have interacted with many astrologers of

> > yesteryears (with

> > > > > > > > > respect to

> > > > > > > > > > my age group) and have never found them claiming the

> > Vargas

> > > > > to

> > > > > > > be

> > > > > > > > > of

> > > > > > > > > > only lagna and planets.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > If you insist that sage Parashara gave the SU. 52.-

> > " Tatra

> > > > > > > > > bhrigwongaraka

> > > > > > > > > > varge paradarikaha " , perhaps you are referring to

> > some

> > > > > edition

> > > > > > > of

> > > > > > > > > BPHS

> > > > > > > > > > that I do not have. However I do have that in the

> > umpteen

> > > > > > > > > different

> > > > > > > > > > texts on Jaimini that I do have in my library. And by

> > the

> > > > > way,

> > > > > > > > > some

> > > > > > > > > > scholars have interpreted that to mean 9th from

> > Karakamsha

> > > > > and

> > > > > > > not

> > > > > > > > > the 2nd.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > I do not agree that a graha can simultaneously occupy

> > the

> > > > > Varga

> > > > > > > of

> > > > > > > > > both

> > > > > > > > > > Venus and Mars, simultaneously, as is being suggested

> > > > > whether in

> > > > > > > > > rasi or

> > > > > > > > > > in any of the Vargas. It could only occupy one or the

> > other.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > I have seen you arguing in favor of looking at the

> > > > > Shadvargas of

> > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > grahas Venus and Mars. I would like you to look at

> > all the

> > > > > six

> > > > > > > > > charts

> > > > > > > > > > whose Vargas together are referred as Shadvargas and

> > try to

> > > > > find

> > > > > > > > > out

> > > > > > > > > > whether they do indeed contain the 6 Vargas of Venus

> > and 6

> > > > > > > Vargas

> > > > > > > > > or

> > > > > > > > > > Mars. I am sure that you will find them to contain

> > only 5

> > > > > Vargas

> > > > > > > > > each of

> > > > > > > > > > the grahas. Once you confirm this by looking at the 6

> > Vargas

> > > > > > > your

> > > > > > > > > self,

> > > > > > > > > > tell me how one can look at Shadvargas of Venus or

> > Mars as

> > > > > is

> > > > > > > > > being

> > > > > > > > > > suggested to be the interpretation of the sutra that

> > you are

> > > > > > > > > referring to.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > You may also be interested to know that Parashara

> > talks of

> > > > > AK

> > > > > > > > > falling in

> > > > > > > > > > the Varga of Chandra, Mars or Venus also having the

> > roving

> > > > > eye

> > > > > > > on

> > > > > > > > > others

> > > > > > > > > > wives. So the combination of Venus and Mars being the

> > only

> > > > > one

> > > > > > > > > giving

> > > > > > > > > > the roving eye for other's wives, that you are

> > advancing as

> > > > > a

> > > > > > > > > standalone

> > > > > > > > > > principle, may not, necessarily, be the way the sage

> > looked

> > > > > at

> > > > > > > > > their

> > > > > > > > > > interpretation.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Take care,

> > > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Those were written by me.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > I am very dissappointed to see that ,inspite of

> > repeating

> > > > > > > numerus

> > > > > > > > > > > times,you are unable to get what i am saying.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > I am not talking about rashis lorded by shukra or

> > Mars

> > > > > here.I

> > > > > > > am

> > > > > > > > > > > talking about the shadvargas vargas of mars and

> > shukra.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Pls tell me what is the meaning of shadvargas or

> > simply

> > > > > Varga

> > > > > > > of

> > > > > > > > > > > lagna.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > It is the rashi in which lagna is placed.The

> > navamshaka of

> > > > > > > > > > > Lagna,Trimshamshaka of Lagna etc.Can we see any

> > lordship

> > > > > as

> > > > > > > you

> > > > > > > > > > > say.Lagna does not own any rashi.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Similarly when we say vargas of Venus -It means

> > Rashi of

> > > > > > > > > > > Venus,Hora,navamshaka,drekkana,trimshamshaka etc.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Shadvarga is never the rashi owned by a planet.Then

> > Lagna

> > > > > can

> > > > > > > > > never

> > > > > > > > > > > have shadvarga.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > On the other hand if we say,Chandra in Guru Varga -

> > We

> > > > > are not

> > > > > > > > > seeing

> > > > > > > > > > > the shadvarga of Guru,but that of chandra.Is chandra

> > > > > placed in

> > > > > > > > > Guru

> > > > > > > > > > > Rashi?Is Chandra navamshaka in Guru Rashi.Is Chandra

> > > > > > > > > Trimshamshaka in

> > > > > > > > > > > Guru Rashi etc is what we check.If so chandras

> > vargas

> > > > > fall in

> > > > > > > > > guru

> > > > > > > > > > > rashis or we say chandra is in guruvargas.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > For the same reason schoplars of yesteryears always

> > say

> > > > > Vargas

> > > > > > > > > are

> > > > > > > > > > > for our natal Lagna and Planets.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > On the other hand you are taking them as owned by a

> > > > > > > planet.Every

> > > > > > > > > > > shadvarga that derive is like that.You may check

> > this with

> > > > > > > shri

> > > > > > > > > > > Narasimha,how he is deriving it for his software.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > For the same reason Bhrigu and Angara can have Varga

> > > > > together

> > > > > > > in

> > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > Rashi which is 2nd from Karakamsha.Sage clearly

> > talks

> > > > > about

> > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > vargas from both.Moreover the next shloka is

> > talking about

> > > > > > > Mars

> > > > > > > > > and

> > > > > > > > > > > Venus together or aspecting the 2nd from karakamsha.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > On the other hand if we go by your explanation,we

> > have to

> > > > > opt

> > > > > > > for

> > > > > > > > > > > just one among shukra or Mars which is not

> > proper.Their

> > > > > Joint

> > > > > > > > > > > influence creates sexual drive.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > I request you to kindly read this with care.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Rspect

> > > > > > > > > > > Pradeep

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > <%40>,

> > Chandrashekhar

> > > > > > > > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > The below remarks are not from my mail at all. I

> > do not

> > > > > know

> > > > > > > > > why

> > > > > > > > > > > you

> > > > > > > > > > > > think I would write that. I am sure you know that

> > this

> > > > > is

> > > > > > > not

> > > > > > > > > my

> > > > > > > > > > > style

> > > > > > > > > > > > of writing at all.

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > " >From my experience -Mars + Venus creates certin

> > > > > > > behaviour.I

> > > > > > > > > feel

> > > > > > > > > > > you

> > > > > > > > > > > > too would have experienced this.Why are you going

> > for

> > > > > the

> > > > > > > varga

> > > > > > > > > > > owned by

> > > > > > > > > > > > just one of them and that too without a planetary

> > link

> > > > > is

> > > > > > > > > really

> > > > > > > > > > > > worrying me.Shri Rath has translated so,i

> > agree.But i

> > > > > have

> > > > > > > an

> > > > > > > > > > > > inner feeling that Shri Rath will definitely

> > correct

> > > > > this

> > > > > > > for

> > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > benfit

> > > > > > > > > > > > of jyotish community. "

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > As to why I said they could not be having their

> > Vargas

> > > > > > > > > together in

> > > > > > > > > > > one

> > > > > > > > > > > > rasi or Bhava does not need any deeper

> > explanation. If

> > > > > you

> > > > > > > are

> > > > > > > > > > > looking

> > > > > > > > > > > > at the 2nd from Karakamsha in the rasi chart, as

> > you

> > > > > think

> > > > > > > is

> > > > > > > > > > > right, you

> > > > > > > > > > > > could not have both Mesha and Vrishabha or Tula

> > and

> > > > > > > Vrishchika

> > > > > > > > > rasi

> > > > > > > > > > > in

> > > > > > > > > > > > 2nd from the Karakamsha, is that not so?

> > Similarly if in

> > > > > > > > > navamsha

> > > > > > > > > > > chart

> > > > > > > > > > > > the 2nd from Karakamsha is to be seen, the 2nd

> > could be

> > > > > not

> > > > > > > > > both

> > > > > > > > > > > navamshas.

> > > > > > > > > > > > Take care,

> > > > > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > I though you meant so.Because in subsequent

> > lines we

> > > > > can

> > > > > > > see

> > > > > > > > > > > Swamsha

> > > > > > > > > > > > > and Karakamsha being used for the same

> > purpose.But if

> > > > > you

> > > > > > > > > think

> > > > > > > > > > > > > there are other places where swamsha is used

> > for say

> > > > > > > > > > > Lagnamsha ,then

> > > > > > > > > > > > > i can trust you if you can point me to that.

> > This

> > > > > should

> > > > > > > not

> > > > > > > > > be a

> > > > > > > > > > > > > problem and in no way it will affect us.

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Venus and Mars can ofcourse have their Vargas

> > in a

> > > > > single

> > > > > > > > > rashi or

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Bhava.Venus can have navamsha there,Mars can

> > have

> > > > > navamsha

> > > > > > > > > > > > > there,Venus can have Trimshamsha there,Mars can

> > have

> > > > > > > > > Trimshamsha

> > > > > > > > > > > > > there,they both can have drekkana there etc etc.

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Thus sage is talking about Bhrigu and Angara

> > both (as

> > > > > you

> > > > > > > > > have

> > > > > > > > > > > > > identified gramattically) having varga there

> > and it is

> > > > > > > very

> > > > > > > > > much

> > > > > > > > > > > > > possible.

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > If you note the next line -Sage is talking

> > about both

> > > > > > > Venus

> > > > > > > > > and

> > > > > > > > > > > Mars

> > > > > > > > > > > > > joining or aspecting the 2nd from Karakamsha.

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >From my experience -Mars + Venus creates certin

> > > > > > > behaviour.I

> > > > > > > > > feel

> > > > > > > > > > > you

> > > > > > > > > > > > > too would have experienced this.Why are you

> > going for

> > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > varga

> > > > > > > > > > > > > owned by just one of them and that too without a

> > > > > planetary

> > > > > > > > > link is

> > > > > > > > > > > > > really worrying me.Shri Rath has translated so,i

> > > > > > > agree.But i

> > > > > > > > > have

> > > > > > > > > > > an

> > > > > > > > > > > > > inner feeling that Shri Rath will definitely

> > correct

> > > > > this

> > > > > > > > > for the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > benfit of jyotish community.

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > I am surprised as to why you say so.That they

> > cannot

> > > > > have

> > > > > > > > > > > together.

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Respect

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Pardeep

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > <%40>,

> > > > > Chandrashekhar

> > > > > > > > > > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > I have never said that I do not think that

> > Swamsha

> > > > > and

> > > > > > > > > > > Karakamsha

> > > > > > > > > > > > > are

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > different where the context demands so. At

> > the same

> > > > > > > time I

> > > > > > > > > do

> > > > > > > > > > > not

> > > > > > > > > > > > > think

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > grammar can be put to rest to in the name of

> > > > > context,

> > > > > > > > > without

> > > > > > > > > > > some

> > > > > > > > > > > > > sound

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > reason.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Of course if you want contextual translation

> > only,

> > > > > then

> > > > > > > > > one can

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > certainly say that the " Meshadi raashige

> > swaamshe "

> > > > > can

> > > > > > > > > always be

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > translated as " Falling in Mesha navamsha in

> > Mesha

> > > > > rasi

> > > > > > > > > etc. " .

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > By the way " Tatra Bhrigwonkaraka Varge " ,

> > that you

> > > > > > > > > mention, does

> > > > > > > > > > > > > not

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > mean varga of both Venus and mars, but of

> > varga of

> > > > > > > Venus OR

> > > > > > > > > > > Mars,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > due to

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the grammar only. varga of two planets can

> > not fall

> > > > > in

> > > > > > > one

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > bhava/amsha/rasi whether in rasi or Navamsha

> > or any

> > > > > > > other

> > > > > > > > > chart.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Take care,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Grammatically,what you are saying is also

> > true.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But Jyotish defintions play a preceding

> > role in

> > > > > > > choosing

> > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > grammatical meaning.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > For example one meaning of labhe ,Swamshe

> > etc is

> > > > > in

> > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > 11th

> > > > > > > > > > > in

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > swamsha etc.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But if we go by that we will definitely

> > translate

> > > > > > > > > swamshe in

> > > > > > > > > > > > > meshadi

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > rashige as ''in Swamsha'',thereby

> > translating it

> > > > > as

> > > > > > > one

> > > > > > > > > full

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > chart.This as you too agree,then cannot

> > pass the

> > > > > > > test,of

> > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > subsequent shlokas.I understand gladly that

> > you

> > > > > too

> > > > > > > > > agree that

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > swamsha and karakamsha are the same.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So the context decides plural/singular and

> > not

> > > > > > > > > necessarily

> > > > > > > > > > > > > the ''E''

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as you have rightly mentioned.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But in essence what i want to say is ''E''

> > does

> > > > > not

> > > > > > > > > always

> > > > > > > > > > > > > mean ''in

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the'' as you have interpreted.Labheshe is an

> > > > > > > > > example.Karake

> > > > > > > > > > > is an

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > example.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thus it can very well mean Varga of Shukra

> > and

> > > > > Mars-

> > > > > > > > > which can

> > > > > > > > > > > > > then be

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > six vargas or one varga.(Not lordship)

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Tatra Bhrigwonkaraka Varge -

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Tatra -(There) In the second from Karakamsha

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Varga or Vargas of Venus and Mars

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Now why should we need two qualifiesrs for

> > > > > destination

> > > > > > > (1)

> > > > > > > > > In

> > > > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > 2nd

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > from karakamsha 2)in the vargas of?)-if we

> > had

> > > > > another

> > > > > > > > > planet

> > > > > > > > > > > > > then

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > your interpretation is right.That planet

> > will

> > > > > answer

> > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > question -

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > who is in the vargas of ?

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Similarly - Swamshad dhane Shukrar

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Swamshad dhane is already pointing to

> > destination-

> > > > > why

> > > > > > > > > should

> > > > > > > > > > > we

> > > > > > > > > > > > > need

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > another ''in the'' vargas of.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On the other hand if we say in the 2nd from

> > > > > > > karakamsha if

> > > > > > > > > > > varga

> > > > > > > > > > > > > of

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mars and venus are present,it fits in

> > > > > > > > > grammatically.Moreover

> > > > > > > > > > > as

> > > > > > > > > > > > > i had

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mentioned rashi lordship without planetary

> > link

> > > > > > > > > > > (placement/amsha

> > > > > > > > > > > > > etc)

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is too general.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Respect

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pradeep

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <%40>,

> > > > > > > Chandrashekhar

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I may be wrong but the " E " by itself does

> > not

> > > > > point

> > > > > > > to

> > > > > > > > > > > plural.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > It

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > word Shadvarga indicating 6 Vargas that

> > is one

> > > > > group

> > > > > > > > > > > (though it

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > contains

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > more than one unit) and so " Varge " , the

> > > > > singular is

> > > > > > > > > used

> > > > > > > > > > > with

> > > > > > > > > > > > > that.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > " E " means " in " . I would be happy if an

> > example

> > > > > > > > > of " Varge "

> > > > > > > > > > > being

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > plural

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > can be given.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I do not at all think that Vargaka or

> > Varga is

> > > > > > > > > singular and

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Vargake

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > or

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Varge is plural, at all. Both the manner

> > of

> > > > > using

> > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > word

> > > > > > > > > > > only

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > indicates singular. it is no use

> > projecting

> > > > > what is

> > > > > > > > > clearly

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Saptami

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > vibhakti and singular as being a plural

> > word. If

> > > > > > > Varga

> > > > > > > > > is

> > > > > > > > > > > to be

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > used as

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > dvivachana it may become " VargyoH "

> > or " VargeSu "

> > > > > (for

> > > > > > > > > > > > > bahuvachan)

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and not

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Varge. Perhaps some Sanskrit scholar on

> > the list

> > > > > > > would

> > > > > > > > > like

> > > > > > > > > > > to

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > comment

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > on this.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So, much as I would like it to resolve,

> > the

> > > > > issue

> > > > > > > > > remains

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > unresolved.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I will give you a relevant example to

> > explain

> > > > > how

> > > > > > > > > VarGE

> > > > > > > > > > > can

> > > > > > > > > > > > > be

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > used in

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > context of plural.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Lagna Shad-VargaKE - Is pointing to all

> > > > > vargas -

> > > > > > > > > > > Plural.You

> > > > > > > > > > > > > may

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > note

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that the grammatical ending is

> > with ''E''

> > > > > showing

> > > > > > > > > plurals

> > > > > > > > > > > > > too can

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > expressed with such an ending.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Now from Vrishamsha''Ka'' and Tulamsha

> > > > > example we

> > > > > > > can

> > > > > > > > > > > > > conclude

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > VargaKA and VarGA can be used for the

> > same

> > > > > > > purpose in

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Ekavachan or

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > singular form and VargaKE and VarGE can

> > be

> > > > > used

> > > > > > > for

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Bahuvachan or

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Plural form.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I hope this may help us in resolving our

> > > > > issue.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Respect

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pradeep

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

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

> > ------

> > > > > ----

> > > > > > > ---

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

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

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database:

> > > > > 269.10.0/886 -

> > > > > > > > > Release

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Date:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 7/4/2007 1:40 PM

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have

> > been

> > > > > > > removed]

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

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

> > ------

> > > > > ----

> > > > > > > ---

> > > > > > > > > -

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

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database:

> > 269.10.0/886 -

> > > > > > > Release

> > > > > > > > > > > Date:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > 7/4/2007 1:40 PM

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been

> > > > > removed]

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

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

> > ------

> > > > > ----

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

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database:

> > 269.10.0/886 -

> > > > > Release

> > > > > > > > > Date:

> > > > > > > > > > > 7/4/2007 1:40 PM

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been

> > removed]

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

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

> > ------

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

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.10.0/886 -

> > Release

> > > > > > > Date:

> > > > > > > > > 7/4/2007 1:40 PM

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

[Guest guest]

Dear Bhaskar ji

 

I hope you haven't understood.What all you need regarding the

thread,has been discussed,including Parasharas words,between me and

Chandrashekhar ji,over numerous mails.Kindly read them from the

beginning.

 

Regds

Pradeep

 

, " Bhaskar " <bhaskar_jyotish

wrote:

>

> Dear Pradeepji,

>

> This is no battle to win arguments, or defeat any one,

> or corner someone, which is not my intentions, never was,

> and not that type of person.I respect all the hard working

> astrologers,those who read the ancient theories , and look

> for authenticity, of course are to be respected more.

> Here the question is every one has his own approach.

> To force my approach on any one using other approach,

> and mantaining that my approach is the right one,

> and yours is wrong, is wrong.

> Which is what most of us are trying to do here.

> Whereas in fact, we should say " Okay you be happy

> with your approach,I be happy with mines. I consider

> my approach as the right one. Period. "

>

> Pradeepji, I am still waiting for the pramana to

> understand that the " karakamsha is to be seen from

> the Rashi Chart " If Shri KN rao sees this from the

> rashi Chart, does not make it the Gospel

> truth for me.Though I respect him and there must be

> some reason for his doing so, and we are not sure

> whether he has remained consistent in seeing the same

> for all part of his Life, from the Rashi chart, or

> ever changed his approach. If we have to keep Shri KN Rao

> Sahab as the base, then we also have to accept

> the theory of aspects to be seen from the

> Navamsha Chart, which I think some member

> has given the link (If I am not mistaklen).

>

> Another point, if we have to accept the approaches used

> by the masters of the Modern day, like Shri KN rao etc.

> then why are we looking at shlokas at all or talking about

> them in the first place ?

>

> regards,

> Bhaskar.

>

>

>

> , " vijayadas_pradeep "

> <vijayadas_pradeep@> wrote:

> >

> > Dear Bhaskar ji

> >

> > It means you were not at all reading the mails exchanged between

> > Chandrashekhar ji and me.So many mails.So does it mean ,you were

> > replying without reading my mails?

> >

> > Regds

> > Pradeep

> >

> > , " Bhaskar " <bhaskar_jyotish@>

> > wrote:

> > >

> > > Drear Chandrasekharji,Pradeepji and other scholars,

> > >

> > > Please, I could not understand how the karakmsha

> > > has to be seen from the Rashi chart, and not

> > > from the Navamsha chart. I thought all

> > > the wonderful effects of planets placed in various

> > > positions from the Karakamsha including Kaivalya,

> > > are to be judged from the Karakamsha postion

> > > in Navamsha.

> > >

> > > That means now my Kaivalya is denied to me,

> > > as per this new learning.Can some reference wih respect

> > > to the ancient shlokas or the ancient authors be

> > > given to me for checking this, as this involves my

> > > own chart, and have personal interest in learning

> > > the actual method, but with pramana.

> > >

> > > regards,

> > > Bhaskar.

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > , Chandrashekhar

> > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > >

> > > > I see your point of view. anyway even within shadvargas we

look

> > for the

> > > > degree of a planet falling within a certain span of degrees

and

> > not one

> > > > particular bindu.

> > > >

> > > > I agree that rashi is a Varga and my question is if one can

look

> > at

> > > > aspects in one Varga why not in other Vargas? I am sure you

know

> > that

> > > > personally I use navamsha to find only the strength of

grahas, but

> > > there

> > > > is no reason to rule out aspects in Navamshas or other charts

> > totally.

> > > > One of the raj yogas mentioned by Parashara talks of aspect

of

> > shubha

> > > > grahas on the karakamsha and Lagnamsha which should also be

> > tenanted by

> > > > Shubha grahas, leaving no doubt as to where the aspects are

to be

> > seen.

> > > > And for the record the translation to that effect is by an

> > eminent

> > > > astrologer who was Professor of astrology in Banaras Hindu

> > University.

> > > >

> > > > Take care,

> > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > >

> > > > > Lagna as a bindu was mentioned for driving home the

shadvarga

> > > > > calculations,if any members were having doubts.For shadvarga

> > > > > calculation of planets too we need the bindu or degree of a

> > planet

> > > > > within a rashi, as you are aware.

> > > > >

> > > > > We have to look at Rashis.This is so because Rashi (one 30

> > degree

> > > > > sector ) is the first varga.As this Varga is synonymous

with

> > Bhava

> > > > > houses are analysed w.r to Rashis.

> > > > >

> > > > > Respect

> > > > > Pradeep

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > > >

> > > > > > If lagna is a bindu a you propose, and nothing more, then

how

> > can

> > > > > it

> > > > > > indicate an entire rasi? Now if this is correct, and

> > technically

> > > > > it is,

> > > > > > then by your reckoning there is no need to look at rasis

too.

> > Is

> > > > > that

> > > > > > what you mean to say?

> > > > > >

> > > > > > If shadvargas are not related to the portion falling in

the

> > lagna

> > > > > rasis,

> > > > > > which holds the degree of lagna Madhya, then it appears

we

> > must ask

> > > > > the

> > > > > > sages to redefine Vargas. I doubt they need our advise.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Take care,

> > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > There was a purpose.I just wanted to explain it to the

> > members if

> > > > > > > some of them are not sure on what shadvarga of lagna is

and

> > how it

> > > > > > > is calculated.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > As you have said Vargas are divisions of a rashi.But

> > shadvargas of

> > > > > > > Lagna is not the Vargas falling in Lagna.Here lagna is

not a

> > > > > > > rashi,but a bindu.Vargas are found from a degree.The

degree

> > of a

> > > > > > > planet or degree of lagna.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > As you may know we do notneed six charts to dtermine

> > shadvargas of

> > > > > > > lagna.All we need is the degree of lagna and the rashi

> > rising.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Let us take an example.Lagna is at 11 degrees in dhanu.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Let us find the shadvargas of Lagna with th help of

rising

> > rashi

> > > > > and

> > > > > > > degree.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > 1st Varga - The Rashi in which Lagna bindu is falling -

> > Dhanu

> > > > > > > 2nd Varga - The Hora in which Lagna bindu is falling -

As 11

> > > > > degrees

> > > > > > > falls in the 1st half of dhanu - Surya Hora

> > > > > > > 3rd Varga - The drekkana in which Lagna bindu is

falling -

> > As 11

> > > > > > > degrees falls in the 2nd 1/3rd of dhanu - Drekkana is

Mesha.

> > > > > > > 4th Varga - As 11 degrees falls in the 3rd

saptamsha ,Lagna

> > > > > saptamsha

> > > > > > > is Kumbha.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Similraly - Lagna navamsha is Karka,Lagna Trimshamsha

is

> > dhanu.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Thus the purpose of whole exercise was to say that when

we

> > say

> > > > > > > shadvargas of Lagna or Mars,it does not mean the rashis

> > owned by

> > > > > > > Lagna or Mars.But the Rashis on towhich they are

> > placed,having

> > > > > > > hora,drekkana etc etc.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Vargas of Mars in the 2nd Rashi from karakamsha too is

no

> > > > > differet.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > There are many meanings,that is why Rashi is called as

> > > > > > > Kshethra /Riksha /havana etc.But i don't think sage

will

> > use the

> > > > > > > saword to represent something belonging to same class.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > For example sage will not use ''sva'' to mean 2nd as

well as

> > > > > 3rd.Then

> > > > > > > we cannot interpret.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Similarly Rashi and navamsha will not be represented

using

> > the

> > > > > same

> > > > > > > word.Rashi/Kshethra/Riksha/Bhvana/Lagna etc are

synonyms an

> > ifthey

> > > > > > > are used for navamsha then what is the whole purpose

behind

> > > > > defintion.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > On the other hand sva was used for iems from different

> > classes.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > This wasin mind while making such a statement.I will

try my

> > best

> > > > > to

> > > > > > > polish my style of writing.I accept my limitations in

> > writing.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Respect

> > > > > > > Pradeep

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> > > > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > I have not understood your question or the intent

behind

> > that.

> > > > > The

> > > > > > > > Vargas are divisions, within a rasi, ruled by

different

> > grahas.

> > > > > So

> > > > > > > if

> > > > > > > > one wants t look at Vargas falling in lagna the shad

> > Vargas will

> > > > > > > mean

> > > > > > > > the rasi equivalent occurring at lagna position in

the 6

> > > > > divisional

> > > > > > > > charts of Rashi, Hora, Dreshkana, Navamsha,

Dwaadashamsha

> > and

> > > > > > > > Trimshamsha. Or at least this is what I have learnt.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Sages did not use words in vain or context. I agree.

But

> > that

> > > > > does

> > > > > > > not

> > > > > > > > mean they used the words to mean only one thing

always.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > I never said that the meaning can be changed to suit

our

> > > > > > > convenience and

> > > > > > > > I would request you not to attribute such sentiments

to

> > me.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > However I do say that word are used in different

contexts

> > to

> > > > > mean

> > > > > > > > different things, especially in Sanskrit texts of

> > Jyotish. I

> > > > > have,

> > > > > > > just

> > > > > > > > a few minutes back use of " Sva " with different

meaning at

> > > > > different

> > > > > > > > places by Varaha Mihira to you. I hope you do not

also

> > attribute

> > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > words that you attributed to me to the venerated

Varaha

> > Mihira.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Take care,

> > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar,.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Pls tell me what you mean by shadvargas of

lagna.How do

> > you

> > > > > find

> > > > > > > > > them.Do you go by ownership or placement

> > > > > > > (Rashi/navamsha/dwadshamsha

> > > > > > > > > etc).

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > There are shlokas in Varahamihiras text which

> > says ,Okarkshe

> > > > > > > > > Purushamshakae.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Which means in Ojarashi and Oja amsha.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > As per me sages will not use any words out of

> > context.If he

> > > > > wants

> > > > > > > to

> > > > > > > > > say amsha he will mention it.He will not use Rashi

to

> > mean as

> > > > > > > amsha.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Ojarkshe is Oja Rashi.Similarly Paparkshe is Papa

Rashi.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > If you want to say as per our conveninece we can

change

> > the

> > > > > > > meaning

> > > > > > > > > of riksha/rashi/bhavana/bhavas as navamsha then i

> > cannot say

> > > > > > > > > anything.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > I can only respect your views.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Respect

> > > > > > > > > Pradeep

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > <%40>,

Chandrashekhar

> > > > > > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > I will tell you why that happens. You begin with

> > quoting

> > > > > > > Parashara

> > > > > > > > > and

> > > > > > > > > > then give a sutra from Jaimini as being said by

> > Parashara.

> > > > > > > > > > Interpretation of sutras is not the easiest of

the

> > things,

> > > > > more

> > > > > > > so

> > > > > > > > > with

> > > > > > > > > > Jaimini's Upadesha sutras. That the sutras use

> > KaTaPaYaadi

> > > > > > > > > encryption

> > > > > > > > > > makes them even more difficult to interpret. I am

> > sure you

> > > > > have

> > > > > > > > > noticed

> > > > > > > > > > this when Sreenadh interpreted the KaTaPaYaadi

Varga

> > in a

> > > > > wrong

> > > > > > > > > fashion.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Then there is your insistence to let Sanskrit

grammar

> > give

> > > > > a go

> > > > > > > by

> > > > > > > > > if

> > > > > > > > > > that can make interpretation of a shloka or sutra

fit

> > your

> > > > > > > > > proposition.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Any of the Shodasha Vargas of a rasi can be

referred

> > to as

> > > > > > > Varga,

> > > > > > > > > but as

> > > > > > > > > > far as I know in astrology, when one talks of

Varga,

> > without

> > > > > > > > > qualifying

> > > > > > > > > > it, or Amshas that generally refers to navamsha or

> > > > > > > Dwadashaamsha.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Another reason that we can not agree, or seem to

> > agree, is

> > > > > that

> > > > > > > > > you are

> > > > > > > > > > reluctant to call a navamsha by the nomenclature

> > navamsha

> > > > > rasi.

> > > > > > > > > This

> > > > > > > > > > makes it difficult to convey what I mean to say

in

> > English

> > > > > as

> > > > > > > that

> > > > > > > > > is

> > > > > > > > > > the language of the net and which both of us

know. Now

> > > > > since you

> > > > > > > > > do not

> > > > > > > > > > want to use the word Mesha navamsha as Mesha is a

> > rashi and

> > > > > by

> > > > > > > > > your

> > > > > > > > > > logic it can not be a navamsha, it becomes

difficult

> > to

> > > > > convey

> > > > > > > > > what I

> > > > > > > > > > understand by the texts.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > I will like to draw your attention to the literal

> > meaning

> > > > > of the

> > > > > > > > > word

> > > > > > > > > > rasi. It means a heap and nothing more. In

astrology

> > since

> > > > > it

> > > > > > > > > > encompasses many stars that make up a nakshatra

the

> > 1/12th

> > > > > > > > > division of

> > > > > > > > > > the zodiac is called a Rasi. Or at least this is

my

> > > > > > > understanding

> > > > > > > > > of the

> > > > > > > > > > reason of using the word rasi for the 1/12th

division

> > of the

> > > > > > > > > zodiac.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > I do not agree that by Chandra in Guru Varga it

is

> > meant

> > > > > that

> > > > > > > > > Varga of

> > > > > > > > > > Chandra is being seen. To me we are talking about

is

> > whether

> > > > > > > > > Chandra is

> > > > > > > > > > falling in the Varga of Guru in which ever rasi

he is

> > > > > occupying.

> > > > > > > > > So in

> > > > > > > > > > Navamsha we see whether Chandra is occupying

Pisces or

> > > > > > > Sagittarius

> > > > > > > > > > navamsha. I also do not agree that there are

Vargas of

> > > > > Chandra

> > > > > > > or

> > > > > > > > > of any

> > > > > > > > > > planet for that matter. The 16 Vargas that

Parashara

> > talks

> > > > > about

> > > > > > > > > are

> > > > > > > > > > that of a Rasi, beginning from the Rashi itself.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > If the Vargas are not owned by different planets,

> > pray why

> > > > > does

> > > > > > > > > the sage

> > > > > > > > > > tell us to see occupation of a friend, own etc.

Varga

> > to

> > > > > assess

> > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > strength of a planet in the Varga concerned?

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > I have interacted with many astrologers of

> > yesteryears (with

> > > > > > > > > respect to

> > > > > > > > > > my age group) and have never found them claiming

the

> > Vargas

> > > > > to

> > > > > > > be

> > > > > > > > > of

> > > > > > > > > > only lagna and planets.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > If you insist that sage Parashara gave the SU.

52.-

> > " Tatra

> > > > > > > > > bhrigwongaraka

> > > > > > > > > > varge paradarikaha " , perhaps you are referring

to

> > some

> > > > > edition

> > > > > > > of

> > > > > > > > > BPHS

> > > > > > > > > > that I do not have. However I do have that in the

> > umpteen

> > > > > > > > > different

> > > > > > > > > > texts on Jaimini that I do have in my library.

And by

> > the

> > > > > way,

> > > > > > > > > some

> > > > > > > > > > scholars have interpreted that to mean 9th from

> > Karakamsha

> > > > > and

> > > > > > > not

> > > > > > > > > the 2nd.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > I do not agree that a graha can simultaneously

occupy

> > the

> > > > > Varga

> > > > > > > of

> > > > > > > > > both

> > > > > > > > > > Venus and Mars, simultaneously, as is being

suggested

> > > > > whether in

> > > > > > > > > rasi or

> > > > > > > > > > in any of the Vargas. It could only occupy one or

the

> > other.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > I have seen you arguing in favor of looking at the

> > > > > Shadvargas of

> > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > grahas Venus and Mars. I would like you to look

at

> > all the

> > > > > six

> > > > > > > > > charts

> > > > > > > > > > whose Vargas together are referred as Shadvargas

and

> > try to

> > > > > find

> > > > > > > > > out

> > > > > > > > > > whether they do indeed contain the 6 Vargas of

Venus

> > and 6

> > > > > > > Vargas

> > > > > > > > > or

> > > > > > > > > > Mars. I am sure that you will find them to

contain

> > only 5

> > > > > Vargas

> > > > > > > > > each of

> > > > > > > > > > the grahas. Once you confirm this by looking at

the 6

> > Vargas

> > > > > > > your

> > > > > > > > > self,

> > > > > > > > > > tell me how one can look at Shadvargas of Venus

or

> > Mars as

> > > > > is

> > > > > > > > > being

> > > > > > > > > > suggested to be the interpretation of the sutra

that

> > you are

> > > > > > > > > referring to.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > You may also be interested to know that Parashara

> > talks of

> > > > > AK

> > > > > > > > > falling in

> > > > > > > > > > the Varga of Chandra, Mars or Venus also having

the

> > roving

> > > > > eye

> > > > > > > on

> > > > > > > > > others

> > > > > > > > > > wives. So the combination of Venus and Mars being

the

> > only

> > > > > one

> > > > > > > > > giving

> > > > > > > > > > the roving eye for other's wives, that you are

> > advancing as

> > > > > a

> > > > > > > > > standalone

> > > > > > > > > > principle, may not, necessarily, be the way the

sage

> > looked

> > > > > at

> > > > > > > > > their

> > > > > > > > > > interpretation.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Take care,

> > > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Those were written by me.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > I am very dissappointed to see that ,inspite of

> > repeating

> > > > > > > numerus

> > > > > > > > > > > times,you are unable to get what i am saying.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > I am not talking about rashis lorded by shukra

or

> > Mars

> > > > > here.I

> > > > > > > am

> > > > > > > > > > > talking about the shadvargas vargas of mars and

> > shukra.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Pls tell me what is the meaning of shadvargas

or

> > simply

> > > > > Varga

> > > > > > > of

> > > > > > > > > > > lagna.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > It is the rashi in which lagna is placed.The

> > navamshaka of

> > > > > > > > > > > Lagna,Trimshamshaka of Lagna etc.Can we see any

> > lordship

> > > > > as

> > > > > > > you

> > > > > > > > > > > say.Lagna does not own any rashi.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Similarly when we say vargas of Venus -It means

> > Rashi of

> > > > > > > > > > > Venus,Hora,navamshaka,drekkana,trimshamshaka

etc.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Shadvarga is never the rashi owned by a

planet.Then

> > Lagna

> > > > > can

> > > > > > > > > never

> > > > > > > > > > > have shadvarga.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > On the other hand if we say,Chandra in Guru

Varga -

> > We

> > > > > are not

> > > > > > > > > seeing

> > > > > > > > > > > the shadvarga of Guru,but that of chandra.Is

chandra

> > > > > placed in

> > > > > > > > > Guru

> > > > > > > > > > > Rashi?Is Chandra navamshaka in Guru Rashi.Is

Chandra

> > > > > > > > > Trimshamshaka in

> > > > > > > > > > > Guru Rashi etc is what we check.If so chandras

> > vargas

> > > > > fall in

> > > > > > > > > guru

> > > > > > > > > > > rashis or we say chandra is in guruvargas.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > For the same reason schoplars of yesteryears

always

> > say

> > > > > Vargas

> > > > > > > > > are

> > > > > > > > > > > for our natal Lagna and Planets.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > On the other hand you are taking them as owned

by a

> > > > > > > planet.Every

> > > > > > > > > > > shadvarga that derive is like that.You may

check

> > this with

> > > > > > > shri

> > > > > > > > > > > Narasimha,how he is deriving it for his

software.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > For the same reason Bhrigu and Angara can have

Varga

> > > > > together

> > > > > > > in

> > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > Rashi which is 2nd from Karakamsha.Sage clearly

> > talks

> > > > > about

> > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > vargas from both.Moreover the next shloka is

> > talking about

> > > > > > > Mars

> > > > > > > > > and

> > > > > > > > > > > Venus together or aspecting the 2nd from

karakamsha.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > On the other hand if we go by your

explanation,we

> > have to

> > > > > opt

> > > > > > > for

> > > > > > > > > > > just one among shukra or Mars which is not

> > proper.Their

> > > > > Joint

> > > > > > > > > > > influence creates sexual drive.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > I request you to kindly read this with care.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Rspect

> > > > > > > > > > > Pradeep

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > <%40>,

> > Chandrashekhar

> > > > > > > > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > The below remarks are not from my mail at

all. I

> > do not

> > > > > know

> > > > > > > > > why

> > > > > > > > > > > you

> > > > > > > > > > > > think I would write that. I am sure you know

that

> > this

> > > > > is

> > > > > > > not

> > > > > > > > > my

> > > > > > > > > > > style

> > > > > > > > > > > > of writing at all.

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > " >From my experience -Mars + Venus creates

certin

> > > > > > > behaviour.I

> > > > > > > > > feel

> > > > > > > > > > > you

> > > > > > > > > > > > too would have experienced this.Why are you

going

> > for

> > > > > the

> > > > > > > varga

> > > > > > > > > > > owned by

> > > > > > > > > > > > just one of them and that too without a

planetary

> > link

> > > > > is

> > > > > > > > > really

> > > > > > > > > > > > worrying me.Shri Rath has translated so,i

> > agree.But i

> > > > > have

> > > > > > > an

> > > > > > > > > > > > inner feeling that Shri Rath will definitely

> > correct

> > > > > this

> > > > > > > for

> > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > benfit

> > > > > > > > > > > > of jyotish community. "

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > As to why I said they could not be having

their

> > Vargas

> > > > > > > > > together in

> > > > > > > > > > > one

> > > > > > > > > > > > rasi or Bhava does not need any deeper

> > explanation. If

> > > > > you

> > > > > > > are

> > > > > > > > > > > looking

> > > > > > > > > > > > at the 2nd from Karakamsha in the rasi chart,

as

> > you

> > > > > think

> > > > > > > is

> > > > > > > > > > > right, you

> > > > > > > > > > > > could not have both Mesha and Vrishabha or

Tula

> > and

> > > > > > > Vrishchika

> > > > > > > > > rasi

> > > > > > > > > > > in

> > > > > > > > > > > > 2nd from the Karakamsha, is that not so?

> > Similarly if in

> > > > > > > > > navamsha

> > > > > > > > > > > chart

> > > > > > > > > > > > the 2nd from Karakamsha is to be seen, the

2nd

> > could be

> > > > > not

> > > > > > > > > both

> > > > > > > > > > > navamshas.

> > > > > > > > > > > > Take care,

> > > > > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > I though you meant so.Because in subsequent

> > lines we

> > > > > can

> > > > > > > see

> > > > > > > > > > > Swamsha

> > > > > > > > > > > > > and Karakamsha being used for the same

> > purpose.But if

> > > > > you

> > > > > > > > > think

> > > > > > > > > > > > > there are other places where swamsha is

used

> > for say

> > > > > > > > > > > Lagnamsha ,then

> > > > > > > > > > > > > i can trust you if you can point me to

that.

> > This

> > > > > should

> > > > > > > not

> > > > > > > > > be a

> > > > > > > > > > > > > problem and in no way it will affect us.

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Venus and Mars can ofcourse have their

Vargas

> > in a

> > > > > single

> > > > > > > > > rashi or

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Bhava.Venus can have navamsha there,Mars

can

> > have

> > > > > navamsha

> > > > > > > > > > > > > there,Venus can have Trimshamsha there,Mars

can

> > have

> > > > > > > > > Trimshamsha

> > > > > > > > > > > > > there,they both can have drekkana there etc

etc.

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Thus sage is talking about Bhrigu and

Angara

> > both (as

> > > > > you

> > > > > > > > > have

> > > > > > > > > > > > > identified gramattically) having varga

there

> > and it is

> > > > > > > very

> > > > > > > > > much

> > > > > > > > > > > > > possible.

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > If you note the next line -Sage is talking

> > about both

> > > > > > > Venus

> > > > > > > > > and

> > > > > > > > > > > Mars

> > > > > > > > > > > > > joining or aspecting the 2nd from

Karakamsha.

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >From my experience -Mars + Venus creates

certin

> > > > > > > behaviour.I

> > > > > > > > > feel

> > > > > > > > > > > you

> > > > > > > > > > > > > too would have experienced this.Why are you

> > going for

> > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > varga

> > > > > > > > > > > > > owned by just one of them and that too

without a

> > > > > planetary

> > > > > > > > > link is

> > > > > > > > > > > > > really worrying me.Shri Rath has translated

so,i

> > > > > > > agree.But i

> > > > > > > > > have

> > > > > > > > > > > an

> > > > > > > > > > > > > inner feeling that Shri Rath will

definitely

> > correct

> > > > > this

> > > > > > > > > for the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > benfit of jyotish community.

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > I am surprised as to why you say so.That

they

> > cannot

> > > > > have

> > > > > > > > > > > together.

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Respect

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Pardeep

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > <%40>,

> > > > > Chandrashekhar

> > > > > > > > > > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > I have never said that I do not think

that

> > Swamsha

> > > > > and

> > > > > > > > > > > Karakamsha

> > > > > > > > > > > > > are

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > different where the context demands so.

At

> > the same

> > > > > > > time I

> > > > > > > > > do

> > > > > > > > > > > not

> > > > > > > > > > > > > think

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > grammar can be put to rest to in the name

of

> > > > > context,

> > > > > > > > > without

> > > > > > > > > > > some

> > > > > > > > > > > > > sound

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > reason.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Of course if you want contextual

translation

> > only,

> > > > > then

> > > > > > > > > one can

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > certainly say that the " Meshadi raashige

> > swaamshe "

> > > > > can

> > > > > > > > > always be

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > translated as " Falling in Mesha navamsha

in

> > Mesha

> > > > > rasi

> > > > > > > > > etc. " .

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > By the way " Tatra Bhrigwonkaraka Varge " ,

> > that you

> > > > > > > > > mention, does

> > > > > > > > > > > > > not

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > mean varga of both Venus and mars, but of

> > varga of

> > > > > > > Venus OR

> > > > > > > > > > > Mars,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > due to

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the grammar only. varga of two planets

can

> > not fall

> > > > > in

> > > > > > > one

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > bhava/amsha/rasi whether in rasi or

Navamsha

> > or any

> > > > > > > other

> > > > > > > > > chart.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Take care,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Grammatically,what you are saying is

also

> > true.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But Jyotish defintions play a preceding

> > role in

> > > > > > > choosing

> > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > grammatical meaning.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > For example one meaning of

labhe ,Swamshe

> > etc is

> > > > > in

> > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > 11th

> > > > > > > > > > > in

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > swamsha etc.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But if we go by that we will definitely

> > translate

> > > > > > > > > swamshe in

> > > > > > > > > > > > > meshadi

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > rashige as ''in Swamsha'',thereby

> > translating it

> > > > > as

> > > > > > > one

> > > > > > > > > full

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > chart.This as you too agree,then cannot

> > pass the

> > > > > > > test,of

> > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > subsequent shlokas.I understand gladly

that

> > you

> > > > > too

> > > > > > > > > agree that

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > swamsha and karakamsha are the same.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So the context decides plural/singular

and

> > not

> > > > > > > > > necessarily

> > > > > > > > > > > > > the ''E''

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as you have rightly mentioned.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But in essence what i want to say

is ''E''

> > does

> > > > > not

> > > > > > > > > always

> > > > > > > > > > > > > mean ''in

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the'' as you have interpreted.Labheshe

is an

> > > > > > > > > example.Karake

> > > > > > > > > > > is an

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > example.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thus it can very well mean Varga of

Shukra

> > and

> > > > > Mars-

> > > > > > > > > which can

> > > > > > > > > > > > > then be

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > six vargas or one varga.(Not lordship)

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Tatra Bhrigwonkaraka Varge -

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Tatra -(There) In the second from

Karakamsha

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Varga or Vargas of Venus and Mars

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Now why should we need two qualifiesrs

for

> > > > > destination

> > > > > > > (1)

> > > > > > > > > In

> > > > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > 2nd

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > from karakamsha 2)in the vargas of?)-if

we

> > had

> > > > > another

> > > > > > > > > planet

> > > > > > > > > > > > > then

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > your interpretation is right.That

planet

> > will

> > > > > answer

> > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > question -

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > who is in the vargas of ?

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Similarly - Swamshad dhane Shukrar

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Swamshad dhane is already pointing to

> > destination-

> > > > > why

> > > > > > > > > should

> > > > > > > > > > > we

> > > > > > > > > > > > > need

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > another ''in the'' vargas of.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On the other hand if we say in the 2nd

from

> > > > > > > karakamsha if

> > > > > > > > > > > varga

> > > > > > > > > > > > > of

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mars and venus are present,it fits in

> > > > > > > > > grammatically.Moreover

> > > > > > > > > > > as

> > > > > > > > > > > > > i had

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mentioned rashi lordship without

planetary

> > link

> > > > > > > > > > > (placement/amsha

> > > > > > > > > > > > > etc)

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is too general.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Respect

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pradeep

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <%40>,

> > > > > > > Chandrashekhar

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I may be wrong but the " E " by itself

does

> > not

> > > > > point

> > > > > > > to

> > > > > > > > > > > plural.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > It

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > word Shadvarga indicating 6 Vargas

that

> > is one

> > > > > group

> > > > > > > > > > > (though it

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > contains

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > more than one unit) and so " Varge " ,

the

> > > > > singular is

> > > > > > > > > used

> > > > > > > > > > > with

> > > > > > > > > > > > > that.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > " E " means " in " . I would be happy if

an

> > example

> > > > > > > > > of " Varge "

> > > > > > > > > > > being

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > plural

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > can be given.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I do not at all think that Vargaka or

> > Varga is

> > > > > > > > > singular and

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Vargake

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > or

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Varge is plural, at all. Both the

manner

> > of

> > > > > using

> > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > word

> > > > > > > > > > > only

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > indicates singular. it is no use

> > projecting

> > > > > what is

> > > > > > > > > clearly

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Saptami

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > vibhakti and singular as being a

plural

> > word. If

> > > > > > > Varga

> > > > > > > > > is

> > > > > > > > > > > to be

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > used as

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > dvivachana it may become " VargyoH "

> > or " VargeSu "

> > > > > (for

> > > > > > > > > > > > > bahuvachan)

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and not

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Varge. Perhaps some Sanskrit scholar

on

> > the list

> > > > > > > would

> > > > > > > > > like

> > > > > > > > > > > to

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > comment

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > on this.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So, much as I would like it to

resolve,

> > the

> > > > > issue

> > > > > > > > > remains

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > unresolved.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I will give you a relevant example

to

> > explain

> > > > > how

> > > > > > > > > VarGE

> > > > > > > > > > > can

> > > > > > > > > > > > > be

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > used in

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > context of plural.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Lagna Shad-VargaKE - Is pointing to

all

> > > > > vargas -

> > > > > > > > > > > Plural.You

> > > > > > > > > > > > > may

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > note

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that the grammatical ending is

> > with ''E''

> > > > > showing

> > > > > > > > > plurals

> > > > > > > > > > > > > too can

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > expressed with such an ending.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Now from Vrishamsha''Ka'' and

Tulamsha

> > > > > example we

> > > > > > > can

> > > > > > > > > > > > > conclude

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > VargaKA and VarGA can be used for

the

> > same

> > > > > > > purpose in

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Ekavachan or

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > singular form and VargaKE and VarGE

can

> > be

> > > > > used

> > > > > > > for

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Bahuvachan or

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Plural form.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I hope this may help us in

resolving our

> > > > > issue.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Respect

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pradeep

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

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

----

> > ------

> > > > > ----

> > > > > > > ---

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

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

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No virus found in this incoming

message.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database:

> > > > > 269.10.0/886 -

> > > > > > > > > Release

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Date:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 7/4/2007 1:40 PM

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message

have

> > been

> > > > > > > removed]

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

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

----

> > ------

> > > > > ----

> > > > > > > ---

> > > > > > > > > -

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

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database:

> > 269.10.0/886 -

> > > > > > > Release

> > > > > > > > > > > Date:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > 7/4/2007 1:40 PM

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have

been

> > > > > removed]

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

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

----

> > ------

> > > > > ----

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

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database:

> > 269.10.0/886 -

> > > > > Release

> > > > > > > > > Date:

> > > > > > > > > > > 7/4/2007 1:40 PM

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been

> > removed]

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

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

----

> > ------

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

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database:

269.10.0/886 -

> > Release

> > > > > > > Date:

> > > > > > > > > 7/4/2007 1:40 PM

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been

removed]

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

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

----

> > --

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

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.10.0/886 -

> > Release

> > > > > Date:

> > > > > > > 7/4/2007 1:40 PM

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

[Guest guest]

Dear Bhaskar,

 

I wrote about aspects in Vargas and not karakamsha. Actually I have

written about how the shlokas suggest that karakamsha is to be seen in

Navamsha charts. The two are different issues.

 

Chandrashekhar.

 

Bhaskar wrote:

>

> Drear Chandrasekharji,Pradeepji and other scholars,

>

> Please, I could not understand how the karakmsha

> has to be seen from the Rashi chart, and not

> from the Navamsha chart. I thought all

> the wonderful effects of planets placed in various

> positions from the Karakamsha including Kaivalya,

> are to be judged from the Karakamsha postion

> in Navamsha.

>

> That means now my Kaivalya is denied to me,

> as per this new learning.Can some reference wih respect

> to the ancient shlokas or the ancient authors be

> given to me for checking this, as this involves my

> own chart, and have personal interest in learning

> the actual method, but with pramana.

>

> regards,

> Bhaskar.

>

>

> <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> <chandrashekhar46 wrote:

> >

> > Dear Pradeep,

> >

> > I see your point of view. anyway even within shadvargas we look for the

> > degree of a planet falling within a certain span of degrees and not one

> > particular bindu.

> >

> > I agree that rashi is a Varga and my question is if one can look at

> > aspects in one Varga why not in other Vargas? I am sure you know that

> > personally I use navamsha to find only the strength of grahas, but

> there

> > is no reason to rule out aspects in Navamshas or other charts totally.

> > One of the raj yogas mentioned by Parashara talks of aspect of shubha

> > grahas on the karakamsha and Lagnamsha which should also be tenanted by

> > Shubha grahas, leaving no doubt as to where the aspects are to be seen.

> > And for the record the translation to that effect is by an eminent

> > astrologer who was Professor of astrology in Banaras Hindu University.

> >

> > Take care,

> > Chandrashekhar.

> >

> >

> > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > >

> > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > >

> > > Lagna as a bindu was mentioned for driving home the shadvarga

> > > calculations,if any members were having doubts.For shadvarga

> > > calculation of planets too we need the bindu or degree of a planet

> > > within a rashi, as you are aware.

> > >

> > > We have to look at Rashis.This is so because Rashi (one 30 degree

> > > sector ) is the first varga.As this Varga is synonymous with Bhava

> > > houses are analysed w.r to Rashis.

> > >

> > > Respect

> > > Pradeep

> > >

> > >

> <%40>

> > > <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > >

> > > > If lagna is a bindu a you propose, and nothing more, then how can

> > > it

> > > > indicate an entire rasi? Now if this is correct, and technically

> > > it is,

> > > > then by your reckoning there is no need to look at rasis too. Is

> > > that

> > > > what you mean to say?

> > > >

> > > > If shadvargas are not related to the portion falling in the lagna

> > > rasis,

> > > > which holds the degree of lagna Madhya, then it appears we must ask

> > > the

> > > > sages to redefine Vargas. I doubt they need our advise.

> > > >

> > > > Take care,

> > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > >

> > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > >

> > > > > There was a purpose.I just wanted to explain it to the members if

> > > > > some of them are not sure on what shadvarga of lagna is and how it

> > > > > is calculated.

> > > > >

> > > > > As you have said Vargas are divisions of a rashi.But shadvargas of

> > > > > Lagna is not the Vargas falling in Lagna.Here lagna is not a

> > > > > rashi,but a bindu.Vargas are found from a degree.The degree of a

> > > > > planet or degree of lagna.

> > > > >

> > > > > As you may know we do notneed six charts to dtermine shadvargas of

> > > > > lagna.All we need is the degree of lagna and the rashi rising.

> > > > >

> > > > > Let us take an example.Lagna is at 11 degrees in dhanu.

> > > > >

> > > > > Let us find the shadvargas of Lagna with th help of rising rashi

> > > and

> > > > > degree.

> > > > >

> > > > > 1st Varga - The Rashi in which Lagna bindu is falling - Dhanu

> > > > > 2nd Varga - The Hora in which Lagna bindu is falling - As 11

> > > degrees

> > > > > falls in the 1st half of dhanu - Surya Hora

> > > > > 3rd Varga - The drekkana in which Lagna bindu is falling - As 11

> > > > > degrees falls in the 2nd 1/3rd of dhanu - Drekkana is Mesha.

> > > > > 4th Varga - As 11 degrees falls in the 3rd saptamsha ,Lagna

> > > saptamsha

> > > > > is Kumbha.

> > > > >

> > > > > Similraly - Lagna navamsha is Karka,Lagna Trimshamsha is dhanu.

> > > > >

> > > > > Thus the purpose of whole exercise was to say that when we say

> > > > > shadvargas of Lagna or Mars,it does not mean the rashis owned by

> > > > > Lagna or Mars.But the Rashis on towhich they are placed,having

> > > > > hora,drekkana etc etc.

> > > > >

> > > > > Vargas of Mars in the 2nd Rashi from karakamsha too is no

> > > differet.

> > > > >

> > > > > There are many meanings,that is why Rashi is called as

> > > > > Kshethra /Riksha /havana etc.But i don't think sage will use the

> > > > > saword to represent something belonging to same class.

> > > > >

> > > > > For example sage will not use ''sva'' to mean 2nd as well as

> > > 3rd.Then

> > > > > we cannot interpret.

> > > > >

> > > > > Similarly Rashi and navamsha will not be represented using the

> > > same

> > > > > word.Rashi/Kshethra/Riksha/Bhvana/Lagna etc are synonyms an ifthey

> > > > > are used for navamsha then what is the whole purpose behind

> > > defintion.

> > > > >

> > > > > On the other hand sva was used for iems from different classes.

> > > > >

> > > > > This wasin mind while making such a statement.I will try my best

> > > to

> > > > > polish my style of writing.I accept my limitations in writing.

> > > > >

> > > > > Respect

> > > > > Pradeep

> > > > >

> > > > >

> <%40>

> > > <%40>

> > > > > <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > > >

> > > > > > I have not understood your question or the intent behind that.

> > > The

> > > > > > Vargas are divisions, within a rasi, ruled by different grahas.

> > > So

> > > > > if

> > > > > > one wants t look at Vargas falling in lagna the shad Vargas will

> > > > > mean

> > > > > > the rasi equivalent occurring at lagna position in the 6

> > > divisional

> > > > > > charts of Rashi, Hora, Dreshkana, Navamsha, Dwaadashamsha and

> > > > > > Trimshamsha. Or at least this is what I have learnt.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Sages did not use words in vain or context. I agree. But that

> > > does

> > > > > not

> > > > > > mean they used the words to mean only one thing always.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > I never said that the meaning can be changed to suit our

> > > > > convenience and

> > > > > > I would request you not to attribute such sentiments to me.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > However I do say that word are used in different contexts to

> > > mean

> > > > > > different things, especially in Sanskrit texts of Jyotish. I

> > > have,

> > > > > just

> > > > > > a few minutes back use of " Sva " with different meaning at

> > > different

> > > > > > places by Varaha Mihira to you. I hope you do not also attribute

> > > > > the

> > > > > > words that you attributed to me to the venerated Varaha Mihira.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Take care,

> > > > > > Chandrashekhar,.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Pls tell me what you mean by shadvargas of lagna.How do you

> > > find

> > > > > > > them.Do you go by ownership or placement

> > > > > (Rashi/navamsha/dwadshamsha

> > > > > > > etc).

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > There are shlokas in Varahamihiras text which says ,Okarkshe

> > > > > > > Purushamshakae.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Which means in Ojarashi and Oja amsha.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > As per me sages will not use any words out of context.If he

> > > wants

> > > > > to

> > > > > > > say amsha he will mention it.He will not use Rashi to mean as

> > > > > amsha.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Ojarkshe is Oja Rashi.Similarly Paparkshe is Papa Rashi.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > If you want to say as per our conveninece we can change the

> > > > > meaning

> > > > > > > of riksha/rashi/bhavana/bhavas as navamsha then i cannot say

> > > > > > > anything.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > I can only respect your views.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Respect

> > > > > > > Pradeep

> > > > > > >

> <%40>

> > > <%40>

> > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> > > > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > I will tell you why that happens. You begin with quoting

> > > > > Parashara

> > > > > > > and

> > > > > > > > then give a sutra from Jaimini as being said by Parashara.

> > > > > > > > Interpretation of sutras is not the easiest of the things,

> > > more

> > > > > so

> > > > > > > with

> > > > > > > > Jaimini's Upadesha sutras. That the sutras use KaTaPaYaadi

> > > > > > > encryption

> > > > > > > > makes them even more difficult to interpret. I am sure you

> > > have

> > > > > > > noticed

> > > > > > > > this when Sreenadh interpreted the KaTaPaYaadi Varga in a

> > > wrong

> > > > > > > fashion.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Then there is your insistence to let Sanskrit grammar give

> > > a go

> > > > > by

> > > > > > > if

> > > > > > > > that can make interpretation of a shloka or sutra fit your

> > > > > > > proposition.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Any of the Shodasha Vargas of a rasi can be referred to as

> > > > > Varga,

> > > > > > > but as

> > > > > > > > far as I know in astrology, when one talks of Varga, without

> > > > > > > qualifying

> > > > > > > > it, or Amshas that generally refers to navamsha or

> > > > > Dwadashaamsha.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Another reason that we can not agree, or seem to agree, is

> > > that

> > > > > > > you are

> > > > > > > > reluctant to call a navamsha by the nomenclature navamsha

> > > rasi.

> > > > > > > This

> > > > > > > > makes it difficult to convey what I mean to say in English

> > > as

> > > > > that

> > > > > > > is

> > > > > > > > the language of the net and which both of us know. Now

> > > since you

> > > > > > > do not

> > > > > > > > want to use the word Mesha navamsha as Mesha is a rashi and

> > > by

> > > > > > > your

> > > > > > > > logic it can not be a navamsha, it becomes difficult to

> > > convey

> > > > > > > what I

> > > > > > > > understand by the texts.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > I will like to draw your attention to the literal meaning

> > > of the

> > > > > > > word

> > > > > > > > rasi. It means a heap and nothing more. In astrology since

> > > it

> > > > > > > > encompasses many stars that make up a nakshatra the 1/12th

> > > > > > > division of

> > > > > > > > the zodiac is called a Rasi. Or at least this is my

> > > > > understanding

> > > > > > > of the

> > > > > > > > reason of using the word rasi for the 1/12th division of the

> > > > > > > zodiac.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > I do not agree that by Chandra in Guru Varga it is meant

> > > that

> > > > > > > Varga of

> > > > > > > > Chandra is being seen. To me we are talking about is whether

> > > > > > > Chandra is

> > > > > > > > falling in the Varga of Guru in which ever rasi he is

> > > occupying.

> > > > > > > So in

> > > > > > > > Navamsha we see whether Chandra is occupying Pisces or

> > > > > Sagittarius

> > > > > > > > navamsha. I also do not agree that there are Vargas of

> > > Chandra

> > > > > or

> > > > > > > of any

> > > > > > > > planet for that matter. The 16 Vargas that Parashara talks

> > > about

> > > > > > > are

> > > > > > > > that of a Rasi, beginning from the Rashi itself.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > If the Vargas are not owned by different planets, pray why

> > > does

> > > > > > > the sage

> > > > > > > > tell us to see occupation of a friend, own etc. Varga to

> > > assess

> > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > strength of a planet in the Varga concerned?

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > I have interacted with many astrologers of yesteryears (with

> > > > > > > respect to

> > > > > > > > my age group) and have never found them claiming the Vargas

> > > to

> > > > > be

> > > > > > > of

> > > > > > > > only lagna and planets.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > If you insist that sage Parashara gave the SU. 52.- " Tatra

> > > > > > > bhrigwongaraka

> > > > > > > > varge paradarikaha " , perhaps you are referring to some

> > > edition

> > > > > of

> > > > > > > BPHS

> > > > > > > > that I do not have. However I do have that in the umpteen

> > > > > > > different

> > > > > > > > texts on Jaimini that I do have in my library. And by the

> > > way,

> > > > > > > some

> > > > > > > > scholars have interpreted that to mean 9th from Karakamsha

> > > and

> > > > > not

> > > > > > > the 2nd.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > I do not agree that a graha can simultaneously occupy the

> > > Varga

> > > > > of

> > > > > > > both

> > > > > > > > Venus and Mars, simultaneously, as is being suggested

> > > whether in

> > > > > > > rasi or

> > > > > > > > in any of the Vargas. It could only occupy one or the other.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > I have seen you arguing in favor of looking at the

> > > Shadvargas of

> > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > grahas Venus and Mars. I would like you to look at all the

> > > six

> > > > > > > charts

> > > > > > > > whose Vargas together are referred as Shadvargas and try to

> > > find

> > > > > > > out

> > > > > > > > whether they do indeed contain the 6 Vargas of Venus and 6

> > > > > Vargas

> > > > > > > or

> > > > > > > > Mars. I am sure that you will find them to contain only 5

> > > Vargas

> > > > > > > each of

> > > > > > > > the grahas. Once you confirm this by looking at the 6 Vargas

> > > > > your

> > > > > > > self,

> > > > > > > > tell me how one can look at Shadvargas of Venus or Mars as

> > > is

> > > > > > > being

> > > > > > > > suggested to be the interpretation of the sutra that you are

> > > > > > > referring to.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > You may also be interested to know that Parashara talks of

> > > AK

> > > > > > > falling in

> > > > > > > > the Varga of Chandra, Mars or Venus also having the roving

> > > eye

> > > > > on

> > > > > > > others

> > > > > > > > wives. So the combination of Venus and Mars being the only

> > > one

> > > > > > > giving

> > > > > > > > the roving eye for other's wives, that you are advancing as

> > > a

> > > > > > > standalone

> > > > > > > > principle, may not, necessarily, be the way the sage looked

> > > at

> > > > > > > their

> > > > > > > > interpretation.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Take care,

> > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Those were written by me.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > I am very dissappointed to see that ,inspite of repeating

> > > > > numerus

> > > > > > > > > times,you are unable to get what i am saying.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > I am not talking about rashis lorded by shukra or Mars

> > > here.I

> > > > > am

> > > > > > > > > talking about the shadvargas vargas of mars and shukra.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Pls tell me what is the meaning of shadvargas or simply

> > > Varga

> > > > > of

> > > > > > > > > lagna.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > It is the rashi in which lagna is placed.The navamshaka of

> > > > > > > > > Lagna,Trimshamshaka of Lagna etc.Can we see any lordship

> > > as

> > > > > you

> > > > > > > > > say.Lagna does not own any rashi.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Similarly when we say vargas of Venus -It means Rashi of

> > > > > > > > > Venus,Hora,navamshaka,drekkana,trimshamshaka etc.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Shadvarga is never the rashi owned by a planet.Then Lagna

> > > can

> > > > > > > never

> > > > > > > > > have shadvarga.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > On the other hand if we say,Chandra in Guru Varga - We

> > > are not

> > > > > > > seeing

> > > > > > > > > the shadvarga of Guru,but that of chandra.Is chandra

> > > placed in

> > > > > > > Guru

> > > > > > > > > Rashi?Is Chandra navamshaka in Guru Rashi.Is Chandra

> > > > > > > Trimshamshaka in

> > > > > > > > > Guru Rashi etc is what we check.If so chandras vargas

> > > fall in

> > > > > > > guru

> > > > > > > > > rashis or we say chandra is in guruvargas.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > For the same reason schoplars of yesteryears always say

> > > Vargas

> > > > > > > are

> > > > > > > > > for our natal Lagna and Planets.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > On the other hand you are taking them as owned by a

> > > > > planet.Every

> > > > > > > > > shadvarga that derive is like that.You may check this with

> > > > > shri

> > > > > > > > > Narasimha,how he is deriving it for his software.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > For the same reason Bhrigu and Angara can have Varga

> > > together

> > > > > in

> > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > Rashi which is 2nd from Karakamsha.Sage clearly talks

> > > about

> > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > vargas from both.Moreover the next shloka is talking about

> > > > > Mars

> > > > > > > and

> > > > > > > > > Venus together or aspecting the 2nd from karakamsha.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > On the other hand if we go by your explanation,we have to

> > > opt

> > > > > for

> > > > > > > > > just one among shukra or Mars which is not proper.Their

> > > Joint

> > > > > > > > > influence creates sexual drive.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > I request you to kindly read this with care.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Rspect

> > > > > > > > > Pradeep

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> <%40>

> > > <%40>

> > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> > > > > > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > The below remarks are not from my mail at all. I do not

> > > know

> > > > > > > why

> > > > > > > > > you

> > > > > > > > > > think I would write that. I am sure you know that this

> > > is

> > > > > not

> > > > > > > my

> > > > > > > > > style

> > > > > > > > > > of writing at all.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > " >From my experience -Mars + Venus creates certin

> > > > > behaviour.I

> > > > > > > feel

> > > > > > > > > you

> > > > > > > > > > too would have experienced this.Why are you going for

> > > the

> > > > > varga

> > > > > > > > > owned by

> > > > > > > > > > just one of them and that too without a planetary link

> > > is

> > > > > > > really

> > > > > > > > > > worrying me.Shri Rath has translated so,i agree.But i

> > > have

> > > > > an

> > > > > > > > > > inner feeling that Shri Rath will definitely correct

> > > this

> > > > > for

> > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > benfit

> > > > > > > > > > of jyotish community. "

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > As to why I said they could not be having their Vargas

> > > > > > > together in

> > > > > > > > > one

> > > > > > > > > > rasi or Bhava does not need any deeper explanation. If

> > > you

> > > > > are

> > > > > > > > > looking

> > > > > > > > > > at the 2nd from Karakamsha in the rasi chart, as you

> > > think

> > > > > is

> > > > > > > > > right, you

> > > > > > > > > > could not have both Mesha and Vrishabha or Tula and

> > > > > Vrishchika

> > > > > > > rasi

> > > > > > > > > in

> > > > > > > > > > 2nd from the Karakamsha, is that not so? Similarly if in

> > > > > > > navamsha

> > > > > > > > > chart

> > > > > > > > > > the 2nd from Karakamsha is to be seen, the 2nd could be

> > > not

> > > > > > > both

> > > > > > > > > navamshas.

> > > > > > > > > > Take care,

> > > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > I though you meant so.Because in subsequent lines we

> > > can

> > > > > see

> > > > > > > > > Swamsha

> > > > > > > > > > > and Karakamsha being used for the same purpose.But if

> > > you

> > > > > > > think

> > > > > > > > > > > there are other places where swamsha is used for say

> > > > > > > > > Lagnamsha ,then

> > > > > > > > > > > i can trust you if you can point me to that. This

> > > should

> > > > > not

> > > > > > > be a

> > > > > > > > > > > problem and in no way it will affect us.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Venus and Mars can ofcourse have their Vargas in a

> > > single

> > > > > > > rashi or

> > > > > > > > > > > Bhava.Venus can have navamsha there,Mars can have

> > > navamsha

> > > > > > > > > > > there,Venus can have Trimshamsha there,Mars can have

> > > > > > > Trimshamsha

> > > > > > > > > > > there,they both can have drekkana there etc etc.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Thus sage is talking about Bhrigu and Angara both (as

> > > you

> > > > > > > have

> > > > > > > > > > > identified gramattically) having varga there and it is

> > > > > very

> > > > > > > much

> > > > > > > > > > > possible.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > If you note the next line -Sage is talking about both

> > > > > Venus

> > > > > > > and

> > > > > > > > > Mars

> > > > > > > > > > > joining or aspecting the 2nd from Karakamsha.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > >From my experience -Mars + Venus creates certin

> > > > > behaviour.I

> > > > > > > feel

> > > > > > > > > you

> > > > > > > > > > > too would have experienced this.Why are you going for

> > > the

> > > > > > > varga

> > > > > > > > > > > owned by just one of them and that too without a

> > > planetary

> > > > > > > link is

> > > > > > > > > > > really worrying me.Shri Rath has translated so,i

> > > > > agree.But i

> > > > > > > have

> > > > > > > > > an

> > > > > > > > > > > inner feeling that Shri Rath will definitely correct

> > > this

> > > > > > > for the

> > > > > > > > > > > benfit of jyotish community.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > I am surprised as to why you say so.That they cannot

> > > have

> > > > > > > > > together.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Respect

> > > > > > > > > > > Pardeep

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> <%40>

> > > <%40>

> > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > <%40>,

> > > Chandrashekhar

> > > > > > > > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > I have never said that I do not think that Swamsha

> > > and

> > > > > > > > > Karakamsha

> > > > > > > > > > > are

> > > > > > > > > > > > different where the context demands so. At the same

> > > > > time I

> > > > > > > do

> > > > > > > > > not

> > > > > > > > > > > think

> > > > > > > > > > > > grammar can be put to rest to in the name of

> > > context,

> > > > > > > without

> > > > > > > > > some

> > > > > > > > > > > sound

> > > > > > > > > > > > reason.

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > Of course if you want contextual translation only,

> > > then

> > > > > > > one can

> > > > > > > > > > > > certainly say that the " Meshadi raashige swaamshe "

> > > can

> > > > > > > always be

> > > > > > > > > > > > translated as " Falling in Mesha navamsha in Mesha

> > > rasi

> > > > > > > etc. " .

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > By the way " Tatra Bhrigwonkaraka Varge " , that you

> > > > > > > mention, does

> > > > > > > > > > > not

> > > > > > > > > > > > mean varga of both Venus and mars, but of varga of

> > > > > Venus OR

> > > > > > > > > Mars,

> > > > > > > > > > > due to

> > > > > > > > > > > > the grammar only. varga of two planets can not fall

> > > in

> > > > > one

> > > > > > > > > > > > bhava/amsha/rasi whether in rasi or Navamsha or any

> > > > > other

> > > > > > > chart.

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > Take care,

> > > > > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Grammatically,what you are saying is also true.

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > But Jyotish defintions play a preceding role in

> > > > > choosing

> > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > grammatical meaning.

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > For example one meaning of labhe ,Swamshe etc is

> > > in

> > > > > the

> > > > > > > 11th

> > > > > > > > > in

> > > > > > > > > > > > > swamsha etc.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > But if we go by that we will definitely translate

> > > > > > > swamshe in

> > > > > > > > > > > meshadi

> > > > > > > > > > > > > rashige as ''in Swamsha'',thereby translating it

> > > as

> > > > > one

> > > > > > > full

> > > > > > > > > > > > > chart.This as you too agree,then cannot pass the

> > > > > test,of

> > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > subsequent shlokas.I understand gladly that you

> > > too

> > > > > > > agree that

> > > > > > > > > > > > > swamsha and karakamsha are the same.

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > So the context decides plural/singular and not

> > > > > > > necessarily

> > > > > > > > > > > the ''E''

> > > > > > > > > > > > > as you have rightly mentioned.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > But in essence what i want to say is ''E'' does

> > > not

> > > > > > > always

> > > > > > > > > > > mean ''in

> > > > > > > > > > > > > the'' as you have interpreted.Labheshe is an

> > > > > > > example.Karake

> > > > > > > > > is an

> > > > > > > > > > > > > example.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Thus it can very well mean Varga of Shukra and

> > > Mars-

> > > > > > > which can

> > > > > > > > > > > then be

> > > > > > > > > > > > > six vargas or one varga.(Not lordship)

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Tatra Bhrigwonkaraka Varge -

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Tatra -(There) In the second from Karakamsha

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Varga or Vargas of Venus and Mars

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Now why should we need two qualifiesrs for

> > > destination

> > > > > (1)

> > > > > > > In

> > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > 2nd

> > > > > > > > > > > > > from karakamsha 2)in the vargas of?)-if we had

> > > another

> > > > > > > planet

> > > > > > > > > > > then

> > > > > > > > > > > > > your interpretation is right.That planet will

> > > answer

> > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > question -

> > > > > > > > > > > > > who is in the vargas of ?

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Similarly - Swamshad dhane Shukrar

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Swamshad dhane is already pointing to destination-

> > > why

> > > > > > > should

> > > > > > > > > we

> > > > > > > > > > > need

> > > > > > > > > > > > > another ''in the'' vargas of.

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > On the other hand if we say in the 2nd from

> > > > > karakamsha if

> > > > > > > > > varga

> > > > > > > > > > > of

> > > > > > > > > > > > > mars and venus are present,it fits in

> > > > > > > grammatically.Moreover

> > > > > > > > > as

> > > > > > > > > > > i had

> > > > > > > > > > > > > mentioned rashi lordship without planetary link

> > > > > > > > > (placement/amsha

> > > > > > > > > > > etc)

> > > > > > > > > > > > > is too general.

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Respect

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Pradeep

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> <%40>

> > > <%40>

> > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > <%40>,

> > > > > Chandrashekhar

> > > > > > > > > > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > I may be wrong but the " E " by itself does not

> > > point

> > > > > to

> > > > > > > > > plural.

> > > > > > > > > > > It

> > > > > > > > > > > > > is the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > word Shadvarga indicating 6 Vargas that is one

> > > group

> > > > > > > > > (though it

> > > > > > > > > > > > > contains

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > more than one unit) and so " Varge " , the

> > > singular is

> > > > > > > used

> > > > > > > > > with

> > > > > > > > > > > that.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > The

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > " E " means " in " . I would be happy if an example

> > > > > > > of " Varge "

> > > > > > > > > being

> > > > > > > > > > > > > plural

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > can be given.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > I do not at all think that Vargaka or Varga is

> > > > > > > singular and

> > > > > > > > > > > Vargake

> > > > > > > > > > > > > or

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Varge is plural, at all. Both the manner of

> > > using

> > > > > the

> > > > > > > word

> > > > > > > > > only

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > indicates singular. it is no use projecting

> > > what is

> > > > > > > clearly

> > > > > > > > > > > Saptami

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > vibhakti and singular as being a plural word. If

> > > > > Varga

> > > > > > > is

> > > > > > > > > to be

> > > > > > > > > > > > > used as

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > dvivachana it may become " VargyoH " or " VargeSu "

> > > (for

> > > > > > > > > > > bahuvachan)

> > > > > > > > > > > > > and not

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Varge. Perhaps some Sanskrit scholar on the list

> > > > > would

> > > > > > > like

> > > > > > > > > to

> > > > > > > > > > > > > comment

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > on this.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > So, much as I would like it to resolve, the

> > > issue

> > > > > > > remains

> > > > > > > > > > > > > unresolved.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I will give you a relevant example to explain

> > > how

> > > > > > > VarGE

> > > > > > > > > can

> > > > > > > > > > > be

> > > > > > > > > > > > > used in

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > context of plural.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Lagna Shad-VargaKE - Is pointing to all

> > > vargas -

> > > > > > > > > Plural.You

> > > > > > > > > > > may

> > > > > > > > > > > > > note

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that the grammatical ending is with ''E''

> > > showing

> > > > > > > plurals

> > > > > > > > > > > too can

> > > > > > > > > > > > > be

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > expressed with such an ending.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Now from Vrishamsha''Ka'' and Tulamsha

> > > example we

> > > > > can

> > > > > > > > > > > conclude

> > > > > > > > > > > > > that

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > VargaKA and VarGA can be used for the same

> > > > > purpose in

> > > > > > > > > > > Ekavachan or

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > singular form and VargaKE and VarGE can be

> > > used

> > > > > for

> > > > > > > > > > > Bahuvachan or

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Plural form.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I hope this may help us in resolving our

> > > issue.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Respect

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pradeep

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

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

> > > ----

> > > > > ---

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

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

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database:

> > > 269.10.0/886 -

> > > > > > > Release

> > > > > > > > > > > Date:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > 7/4/2007 1:40 PM

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been

> > > > > removed]

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

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

> > > ----

> > > > > ---

> > > > > > > -

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

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.10.0/886 -

> > > > > Release

> > > > > > > > > Date:

> > > > > > > > > > > 7/4/2007 1:40 PM

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been

> > > removed]

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

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

> > > ----

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

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.10.0/886 -

> > > Release

> > > > > > > Date:

> > > > > > > > > 7/4/2007 1:40 PM

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >