Karakamsha -Chandrashekhar ji -1/Hora etc missed mail

[Guest guest]

Dear Chandrashekhar ji

 

> Why keep hora for a separate dealing? Is it not a varga amongst

the > shadvargas?

 

Pradeep:It is ofcourse a Varga.What i meant was whenever we think of

Hora among shadvargas ,we have a controversy.It is because of the

ownership.

But Shri K.N.Raoji had told about the Varanasi style of Vargas,where

Hora will have Rashis.For example Aries rashi will have Aries and

Taurus Horas.If that is the case our problem is solved.

But as it is not universal,i thought we keep it as seperate.As you

know,Hora problem is not typical to our problem.

 

 

>>> I also see some very low level remarks like " trying to fool

>>others "

 

Pradeep:Chandrashekhar ji ,i have not used any bad words against

respected astrologers and if you feel ''fooling others is wrong'' i

can withdraw and apologize.You are elder and can advise me.

 

the context was -Shri rath has clearly said amshaka points to rashi

(has to be analysed in Rashi.Now Parashara has used amsha and

amshaka in similar context.Thus if we shri Rath after knowing this

(if it is because of igonorance -it is fine-we all makes

mistakes),still is not willing to correct and keeps silence,i

thought it is trying to fool others.

 

I will try to refrain from using such.

 

Regarding rest of the mail,i have given answers over seperate mails.

 

Respect

Pradeep

 

, Chandrashekhar

<chandrashekhar46 wrote:

>

> Dear Pradeep,

>

> " Pradeep: Hora is a universal problem and not specific to our

> example,while thinking of shadvarga and we may deal this separately

> as another thread. "

>

> Why keep hora for a separate dealing? Is it not a varga amongst

the

> shadvargas?

>

> " Pradeep:In this example Venus in the 7th is pointing to two

things

> (7th bhava and a Planet).But with ''in the varga of'' explanation

> there is no planet - Just Lordship.It is then like for eg saying

if 7th

> house is Libra/Taurus/Aries or Scorpio some results will come. "

>

> So how does this differ from your contention that the Vargas of

Venus or

> Mars mean rasis of Venus or Mars? Or does that mean only one rasi

when

> 2nd for Karakamsha falling in Varga od Venus or Mars, that you

interpret

> as rasi?

>

> " Pradeep:I have never said ''in the vargas of'' - I have always

said

> ''Vargas of''.There is a big difference.I was talking about Venus

or

> Mars having Varga there(Not the ones lorded by them).Varge(ending

with

> ''ay'') can have different meanings(Not always in the Varga

of).For

> example Labh''e'' is in the 11th while Labhesh''e'' is just

pointing to

> 11th lord. Rashige is pointing to plural - In the Rashis.Thus i

feel it is

> contextual. "

>

> Could you explain the difference between " in the Vargas of "

and " Vargas

> of " ? If Varga of a planet does not refer to one being lorded by a

> planet, pray what does it refer to? The simile of Labha and

Labhesha

> seems inappropriate. You are talking about Vargas in both the

cases of

> Vargas and not about Varga and Vargesha.

>

> Your reference to Rashige in the thread is unclear. Anyway what is

the

> word that says " in the rashi " in Sanskrit according to you., since

you

> feel Rashige is pointing to plural?

>

> " Pradeep:Can you pls translate - Meshadi + Rashige + Swamshe

(What do

> you think Rashige means)

>

> For me there are two possibilities for ''Meshadi Rashige

Swamshe'' -

>

> a)Swamsha(Karakamsh

>

> a) in the Rashis from Mesha onwards

>

> b)Swamsha is a full chart with all Navamshas(K.N.Raojis view - In

> meshadi rashis within Swamshe).This is literally correct,but will

fail

> with succeeding shlokas.If Swamsha is a full chart -from where do

we

> count 10th/4th etc from Swamsha references.Thus swamsha is

> Karaka Grahas amsha(Swa -His,Amsha). I assume Raoji had Navamsha

as a

> full chart in mind.Similarly LateSanthanam could not interpret the

Lagna

> Shadvargake Shloka as the scholar some how misunderstood Sage.If

we go

> by the ancient texts in local language,analyzing amshas(within the

frame

> of 12 Rashis(Rashige Swamshe) can be clearly understood.

>

> Karakamsha is always the navamsha occuppied by AkmaKaraka and

there is

> no disagreement.After identification how we analyze is the

> key.Analysis is always done w.r to a skeleton of 12 Rashis.Eg:AK

Mars in

> Mithuna Navamsha(no matter in which Rashi this Mars is

> placed) will then point back to one SINGLE Mithuna Rashi.This has

to be

> understood as Mars having swamsha in Mithuna RASHI.It is

> different from PLACED in Mithuna Rashi.You are mixing the two. "

>

> I would expect you to explain what you understand by

> Meshadi+rashige+swamshe. For me it means Karakamsha in Mesha etc.

Amshas.

>

> If we take your contention of Swamsha in Mesha etc. rasis, and not

> amshas as is being hinted at, then amshas can not be named after

rasis

> and should have other nomenclature. If that be so how do you map

it back

> to rasi chart as is being suggested? And how does then see

debility or

> exaltation of a planet in navamsha chart as there are nothing that

can

> be termed as rasis there as is being advocated?

>

> I also fail to understand why only the first shloka of

> Karakamshaphaladhyaaya is being quoted and not the 2nd and other

shlokas

> which clearly talking about MeshaaMshe and Vrishabhaamshe,

removing any

> ambiguity in any body's mind as to whether BPHS is referring to

Rasi or

> amshas? This is not contextual interpretation as is being claimed

at

> all, it seems to me.

>

> _Some comments for all those participating in the discussions:

> _

> I also see some very low level remarks like " trying to fool

others " and

> so on with regards to well respected and knowledgeable

astrologers, in

> off shoots of this thread. Just because bad words are used does

not mean

> a point is proved. One may hold a different opinion on some

astrological

> point but that does not give anyone a license to bad mouth others,

even

> in the heat of discussion on the divine science.

>

> I too do not think graha drishtis in navamsha or other D-charts to

be

> right, but I never use such language (of course, I may not be the

role

> model for modern day astrologers). There are umpteen number of

> astrological texts that talk of aspects on Dreshkana lagna,

navamsha

> lagna and lagna, by the same graha, or any two of them

etc.indicating

> that some authorities did consider drishtis in those charts as

they

> could not refer to one rasi as had that been the case then

Vargottam

> lagna could have been mentioned there.

>

> Take care,

>

> Chandrashekhar.

>

>

>

> vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> >

> > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> >

> > Pls find my reply.

> >

> >

> > <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > >

> > > Dear Pradeep,

> > >

> > > If we accept your argument for the sake of argument, how do you

> > look at

> > > Shukra or Mangal Varga in Hora chart? As to nine Aries navamsha

> > and so

> > > on, if trouble from rats etc is accepted in all 9 of them why

only

> > in

> > > this particular case should there be an exception?

> >

> > Pradeep: Hora is a universal problem and not specific to our

> > example,while thinking of shadvarga and we may deal this

sepeartely

> > as another thread.

> >

> > >

> > > If you remember, there is a dictum that Venus in the 7th makes

a

> > person > libidinous. Now in that case this could happen with any

> > lagna in a rasi > chart. So does that mean the dictum itself is

not

> > to be applied in the > rasi chart?

> >

> > Pradeep:In this example Venus in the 7th is pointing to two

things

> > (7th bhava and a Planet).But with ''in the varga of'' explanation

> > there is no planet - Just Lordship.It is then like for eg saying

if

> > 7th house is Libra/Taurus/Aries or Scorpio some results will

come.

> >

> > >

> > > Personally speaking, I do not think any of the astrological

> > principle > given is to be treated as a standalone principle that

> > can be applied > without assessing the strength of a bhava.

> > >

> > > I think I have already explained that, as far as I

think, " Varge "

> > means > " in the varga of " and not " in the vargas of " . I am sure

some

> > one who is > a scholar of Sanskrit may know better, but " Varge "

is

> > certainly not plural.

> >

> > Pradeep:I have never said ''in the vargas of'' - I have always

> > said ''Vargas of''.There is a big difference.I was talking about

> > Venus or Mars having Varga there(Not the ones lorded by

them).Varge

> > (ending with ''ay'') can have different meanings(Not always in

the

> > Varga of).For example Labh''e'' is in the 11th while

Labhesh''e'' is

> > just pointing to 11th lord.

> >

> > Rashige is pointing to plural - In the Rashis.Thus i feel it is

> > contextual.

> >

> > >

> > > I seriously doubt that " Meshaadi rashige Swamshe " means what

you

> > are > trying to translate it to mean neither does the respected

R.

> > Santanam > who has translated it to mean as " Karakamsha identical

> > with Aries etc. " > He also goes on to say in the notes that

> > Karakamsha is the navamsha > occupied by the Atma karaka. And if

you

> > care to read the next shloka it > talks about " grihe

> > Ushakamaarjaaraa meshaaMshe hyaatmakaarake " , leaving

> > > no scope for interpretation as to what Parashara meant by

> > Karakamsha. So > why you, or as you say MR. Rao, insist that

> > Karakamsha means the Rasi > occupied in rasi chart, identical to

the

> > Navamsha occupied by the > Atmakaraka in navamsha, is not at all

> > very clear.

> >

> > Pradeep:Can you pls translate - Meshadi + Rashige + Swamshe

(What do

> > you think Rashige means)

> >

> > For me there are two possibilities for ''Meshadi Rashige

Swamshe'' -

> >

> > a)Swamsha(Karakamsha) in the Rashis from Mesha onwards

> >

> > b)Swamsha is a full chart with all Navamshas(K.N.Raojis view - In

> > meshadi rashis within Swamshe).This is literally correct,but will

> > fail with succeeding shlokas.If Swamsha is a full chart -from

where

> > do we count 10th/4th etc from Swamsha references.Thus swamsha is

> > Karaka Grahas amsha(Swa -His,Amsha).

> >

> > I assume Raoji had Navamsha as a full chart in mind.Similarly

Late

> > Santhanam could not interpret the Lagna Shadvargake Shloka as the

> > scholar some how misunderstood Sage.If we go by the ancient

texts in

> > local language,analyzing amshas(within the frame of 12 Rashis

(Rashige

> > Swamshe) can be clearly understood.

> >

> > Karakamsha is always the navamsha occuppied by AkmaKaraka and

there

> > is no disagreement.After identification how we analyze is the

> > key.Analysis is always done w.r to a skeleton of 12 Rashis.Eg:AK

> > Mars in Mithuna Navamsha(no matter in which Rashi this Mars is

> > placed) will then point back to one SINGLE Mithuna Rashi.This

has to

> > be understood as Mars having swamsha in Mithuna RASHI.It is

> > different from PLACED in Mithuna Rashi.You are mixing the two.

> >

> > >

> > > Chandrashekhar.

> > >

> >

> > Respect

> > Pradeep

> > >

> > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > >

> > > > Thanks a lot for your kind reply and trust.

> > > > Yes i have learned this from your teachings -Grahas have to

be

> > > > strong to give karaka bhava nasha results.Hence once i had

> > guessed

> > > > Late Saddam husseins lagna as Simha ,with exalted Surya in

the

> > 9th.

> > > >

> > > > The whole point in bringing this up was to say that grahas in

> > > > association with rashis bring in results.If you say Venus and

> > Mars

> > > > owning 2nd from karakamsha is the meaning- Then all those

> > > > individuals having Karakamsha as

> > > > 1)Aries

> > > > 2)Virgo

> > > > 3)Meena

> > > > 4)Libra

> > > >

> > > > will behave in such a fashion as 2nd from these are owned by

> > either

> > > > Mars/Venus.

> > > >

> > > > Moreover,there are nine Aries navamshas,Nine Taurus etc

> > repeating 12

> > > > times within a Rashi of 360 degrees.And any of these can

qualify

> > for

> > > > meeting our condition.Do you think it is such a general

> > reference.

> > > >

> > > > On the other hand in any chart,Venus and Mars will have only

one

> > and

> > > > only one navamsha/trmishamsha etc. Thus sage is talking about

> > mars

> > > > and Venus having vargas in the 2nd from karakamsha/swamsha

rashis

> > > > for light results and their yuti/aspects resulting in

stronger

> > > > results.

> > > >

> > > > ''Meshadi Rashige Swamshe -BPHS Karakamsha Phala adhyaya'' -

is

> > > > talking about Karaka graha having its amsha(swamsha) in

rashis

> > > > starting from mesha onwards.In other words plural is meant

and

> > > > meanings are contextual.

> > > >

> > > > Here sage is talking about graha having - swamshe where? - in

> > > > meshadi rashige (rashis)

> > > >

> > > > Similarly -Tatra -(There) Bhrigwonkaraka Varge - Mars and

Venus

> > are

> > > > having Vargas.

> > > >

> > > > Rashi is ofcourse the first Varga.When a graha is studied

w.r to

> > one

> > > > full span of a Riksha/Kshethra/Bhava it is a study about the

> > first

> > > > varga.Within this Rashi if we are studying one half

influences -

> > it

> > > > becomes Hora.One ninth it becomes navamsha.

> > > >

> > > > But no matter whether you get aries from aries rashi or

taurus

> > rashi

> > > > we have only one Aries Rashi to tudy Rashi Tulya or Transit

> > > > results.Why is it so.Because amshas relate to root Rashis.On

the

> > > > other hand you are assuming that the mapping back is

pointing to

> > > > placaments -which can happen only in case of Vragottama.

> > > >

> > > > Hope this is clear.

> > > >

> > > > I was able to read BPHS sanskrit shlokas and it is

surprising to

> > > > note why others have difference in opinion with Raoji.

> > > > I will write it as another mail.

> > > >

> > > > Respect

> > > > Pardeep

> > > >

> > > > -- In

> > <%40>

> > > > <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > >

> > > > > I would not have replied to the query had it not been from

> > you. I

> > > > hope

> > > > > my answer does not begin another round of uncouth comments.

> > > > >

> > > > > First, the karaka Bhava nasha does not occur when a rasi

owned

> > by

> > > > a

> > > > > karaka happens to be in the bhava. It is the karaka itself

that

> > > > has to

> > > > > occupy the bhava for which it is karaka. My personal

opinion is

> > > > that

> > > > > Karaka bhava nasha occurs only when the karaka so

occupying the

> > > > bhava is

> > > > > strong and that it does not happen always. Perhaps the

saying

> > > > arose out

> > > > > of the way Guru and Shukra behave when occupying their

karaka

> > > > sthanas.

> > > > >

> > > > > I would not go into what is the correct understanding of

> > > > shadvargas at

> > > > > this point of time, or shadabalas for that matter. But I

would

> > > > like to

> > > > > point out that as far as my little knowledge of Sanskrit

goes,

> > > > Varge is

> > > > > not plural of varga. It only means " in the Varga " .

> > > > >

> > > > > By the way, I have not understood what you mean by " Basic

> > > > > understanding- Shadvargas are found either for our natal

Lagna

> > or

> > > > other

> > > > > Planets " . Rasi is also one of the Shadavarga according to

> > whatever

> > > > of

> > > > > astrology that I have read. Has some less known text

proposed

> > > > otherwise?

> > > > >

> > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > >

> > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Dear Chandrashekharji

> > > > > >

> > > > > > My doubt is if 9th bhava is Simha will we have Karaka

Bhava

> > > > nasha.I

> > > > > > feel Surya has to be placed in the 9th.Similarly two papa

> > rashis

> > > > > > bordering Lagna do not result in Papakartari.Grahas bring

> > such

> > > > > > results.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > If we are not prepared to understand the baisc meaning of

> > > > Shadvargas

> > > > > > as advised by sages,erroneous translations will

definitely

> > > > result.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Basic understanding- Shadvargas are found either for our

> > natal

> > > > Lagna

> > > > > > or other Planets.If anyone can find/derive otherwise

please

> > > > > > demonstrate through an example -any chart.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > We have 108 navamsha sectors and a single planet can have

> > Aries

> > > > > > navamsha in 9 possible ways.But then how are we able to

bring

> > > > any of

> > > > > > these navamshas to a single Aries no matter,where(Rashis)

> > they

> > > > are

> > > > > > falling within Rashi chakra.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Sage can very well mean shadvargas of Venus/Mars.He can

> > point to

> > > > > > Venus and Mars having various amshas ie

> > > > navamsha/drekkana/trimshamsha

> > > > > > etc in the rashi which is 2nd to Karakamsha.As you have

> > rightly

> > > > > > identified - Nobody can find dwadshamsha or for that

matter

> > any

> > > > varga

> > > > > > within ''divisional spans'' and sage will never expect

such a

> > > > thought

> > > > > > from students.But everyone is thinking of ''Vargas owned

by

> > Mars

> > > > and

> > > > > > Kuja''.As shadvargas are not possible within divisional

> > spans,no

> > > > body

> > > > > > is sure on what to do and some smart jyotishis like shri

Rath

> > > > settles

> > > > > > down with navamsha even when ''Varge'' plural has been

> > > > > > mentioned.''There are four such navamshas'' is also not

> > > > proper.At a

> > > > > > time only one varga is possible. On the other hand Venus

and

> > > > Shukra

> > > > > > can have ''Varge''(multiple vargas) - in the same rashi

at a

> > > > time.

> > > > > > w.r to doubt regarding Hora-This is not specific to this

> > > > shloka ,it

> > > > > > is a common problem.

> > > > > > But the basic thing is more number of vargas stronger the

> > result.

> > > > > > '' If the 10th house has more Saturnian Vargas'' - does

not

> > > > point to

> > > > > > 10th house having capricorn or aquarius.But whether

Saturn is

> > > > having

> > > > > > many amshas/vargas in the Rashi acting as 10th House.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Thus the translation itself is not proper.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > I will explaion it in another mail.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Respect

> > > > > > Pradeep

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > <%40>

> > > > <%40>

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

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

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > I can not comment on why Sanjay Rath interpreted the

way he

> > > > did. I

> > > > > > only

> > > > > > > gave what he said.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > I have already indicated that this discussion is

leading to

> > > > nowhere.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > One thing I would like to understand is why must Varge

mean

> > > > > > Shadvarga as

> > > > > > > is being insisted, if we think that it can not be

navamsha

> > > > ruled by

> > > > > > > Shukra or Kuja? When karakamsha means navamsha

occupied by

> > > > > > Atmakaraka,

> > > > > > > how do you find a Dwadashaamsha next to Karakamsha in a

> > > > navamsha

> > > > > > chakra

> > > > > > > or vise a versa as one s spread over 3 degree 20

minutes

> > and

> > > > the

> > > > > > other

> > > > > > > over 1 degree of the zodiacal arc.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > About the 12th from Shani it would be better if one

also

> > reads

> > > > what

> > > > > > BPHS

> > > > > > > says about 12th from Karakamsha wherein " Kaarakaamshaad

> > vyaye

> > > > > > saure... "

> > > > > > > is clearly mentioned. So the 12th from Karakamsha is

> > clearly

> > > > > > brought

> > > > > > > out. There in you will find why the reference to

paparxe

> > and

> > > > its

> > > > > > > meaning. Parashara says that if such a Shani also

occupies

> > a

> > > > > > malefic

> > > > > > > rasi then the person worships kshudra devata. But then

the

> > word

> > > > > > rashi

> > > > > > > could also be used to indicate the navamsha, as the

word

> > Rasi

> > > > means

> > > > > > a

> > > > > > > heap and could be used to indicate the navamsha rasi.

It

> > need

> > > > not

> > > > > > every

> > > > > > > time mean rasi as in rasi chakra.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > There are too many yogas where position of a graha in

> > > > Karakamsha or

> > > > > > > Swaamsha, alone, is given to think that Karakamsha is

to be

> > > > taken

> > > > > > back

> > > > > > > to rasi chakra and read there. Those shlokas do not

prove

> > KNR's

> > > > > > views at

> > > > > > > all. Some shlokas could however be interpreted to

coincide

> > with

> > > > > > KNR's views.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Of course this is my personal view and others could

hold a

> > > > > > different view.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Thanks for the explanation.

> > > > > > > > As you say,we should not see shlokas in

isolation.Seeing

> > the

> > > > > > > > stream,preceding,succeeding is necessary.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > In the given case why is sage mentioning ''Varge''

if it

> > is

> > > > > > > > understood as an amsha arrangement.For eg in none of

the

> > > > preceding

> > > > > > > > shlokas we have that usage.Tatra Ravou etc.

> > > > > > > > I dont know about 2 or 9th -anyways it is not our

major

> > > > concern.

> > > > > > > > Two possibilities.1)Mars and Kuja having Varga is

> > > > mentioned.2)

> > > > > > Varga

> > > > > > > > owned by Kuja is mentioned.I will go for 1.By having

a

> > > > certain

> > > > > > rashi

> > > > > > > > results cnnot be predicted.Then individuals with

lagna as

> > > > papa

> > > > > > rashis

> > > > > > > > should all be treated as bad.In a papa rashi ifsome

some

> > > > graha is

> > > > > > > > placed or having amsha results can be predicted.

> > > > > > > > Venus and Mars having amsha there is being

mentioned.Shri

> > > > Raths

> > > > > > > > translation is very strange.Pls see shri Suryanaain

raos

> > > > > > translation

> > > > > > > > in this case.

> > > > > > > > As karakamsha is found from navamsha,we may say this

> > Varga is

> > > > > > > > navamsha.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Now there is an inconsistency.Sutras will be

short.Why

> > did

> > > > sage

> > > > > > give

> > > > > > > > superflous info.Why did Sage say Varga,if it is

clearly

> > > > known.It

> > > > > > > > clearly means the previous ones are graha placements

from

> > > > > > karakamsha

> > > > > > > > rashi.And this one points to amsha in the 2nd from

such a

> > > > rashi.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > If some one wants to say sage is talking about

> > shadvargas -

> > > > Then

> > > > > > > > again reference is karakamsha rashi as shadvargas

can be

> > > > seen only

> > > > > > > > w.r to rashi.I prefer with first translation.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Now the most important shloka -Su-80-Paparkshe mande

> > > > > > shudradevatha.

> > > > > > > > Sage is talking about Karakamasha falling in papa

Riksha

> > > > (Rashi)

> > > > > > and

> > > > > > > > Saturns placement there.Rashi isclearly mentioned.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Now why is Sage mentioning Paprkshe or Rashi

specifically

> > > > will be

> > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > question in mind.For all other cases he was

mentioning

> > > > placement

> > > > > > of

> > > > > > > > planets in karakamsha Rashi.Thus he could say Tatra

> > Ravou etc

> > > > > > without

> > > > > > > > specyfying Rashi, as it is understood.In this case he

> > has no

> > > > other

> > > > > > > > way as a malefic Rashi can only be expressed with

help of

> > > > word

> > > > > > > > Riksha or Rashi.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar ji kindly give your views.

> > > > > > > > I would request shri Narasimha Rao etc to clarify

their

> > > > > > position.Shri

> > > > > > > > K.N.Raojis views are being proved true through these

> > shlokas.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Respect

> > > > > > > > Pradeep

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > <%40>

> > > > <%40>

> > > > > > <%40>

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

Chandrashekhar

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

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > He says " Venus or Mars owning the second from

swamsha

> > > > produces

> > > > > > > > passion

> > > > > > > > > and illicit relationship "

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Where is the question of all shadvargas here? I

have

> > not

> > > > seen

> > > > > > that

> > > > > > > > > interpretation by others whose commentaries on

Jaimini

> > > > sutras, I

> > > > > > > > also

> > > > > > > > > possess. It is the 2nd house (Sanjay) or 9th (Some

> > other

> > > > > > > > commentators)

> > > > > > > > > to the Swamsha. The next navamsha has to be ruled

by

> > either

> > > > > > Venus

> > > > > > > > or

> > > > > > > > > Mars and there are 4 such navamshas. Some

commentators

> > say

> > > > that

> > > > > > it

> > > > > > > > is

> > > > > > > > > enough if the second from swamsha happens to be

any of

> > the

> > > > > > > > shadvargas.

> > > > > > > > > To me that is strange translation as Swamsha

> > necessarily

> > > > occurs

> > > > > > in

> > > > > > > > > Navamsha. But then the logic of those commentators

may

> > be

> > > > that

> > > > > > > > amsha can

> > > > > > > > > indicate any one of the divisions of any of the 6 D

> > > > charts. I

> > > > > > would

> > > > > > > > not

> > > > > > > > > think that is right, specially as in Hora chart

that

> > could

> > > > never

> > > > > > > > occur.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > I will be interested to know how Shri Rath has

> > > > interpreted

> > > > > > this

> > > > > > > > > > shloka.Also i would like to see your view.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Do you think technically this is possible if it

is in

> > > > navamsha

> > > > > > > > (can all

> > > > > > > > > > shadvargas fall there)

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > SU. 52.-Tatra bhrigwongaraka varge paradarikaha.

If

> > the

> > > > 9th

> > > > > > from

> > > > > > > > > > Karakamsa falls in one of the shadvargas of

Sukra and

> > > > Kuja, he

> > > > > > > > will be

> > > > > > > > > > fond of others' wives.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Respect

> > > > > > > > > > Pradeep

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

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

----

> > ----

> > > > -

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

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.8.13/844 -

> > Release

> > > > > > Date:

> > > > > > > > 6/11/2007 5:10 PM

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been

removed]

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

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

----

> > -

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

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.8.13/844 -

Release

> > > > Date:

> > > > > > 6/11/2007 5:10 PM

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

[Guest guest]

Dear Pradeep,

 

By Varanasi style hora, do you mean Parivrittidvaya hora? If so, I do

support that system of drawing horas. But my question is a bit

different. I want to know why astrologers are comfortable with the word

Shadbala with the Chandra and Surya hora where grahas are shown in

Cancer and Leo but want to dispute that the word Varge could simply mean

the Varga of either Shukra or Mangal when it is not possible for the

Vargas to fall in shadvarga as is claimed by them, using the Rashyardha

hora.

 

Do you not think this is something that needs to be thought about in

depth. I also see Satya giving examples of KNR using D-Charts whereas it

is being claimed that he does not support them.

 

As to the word fooling anybody, used with reference to any astrologer, I

think that is not a good term to use and it is good that you realize

that. I know you for a sincere student of astrology and that is why I

felt it my duty to correct you in that regard.

 

Take care,

Chandrashekhar.

 

vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

>

> Dear Chandrashekhar ji

>

> > Why keep hora for a separate dealing? Is it not a varga amongst

> the > shadvargas?

>

> Pradeep:It is ofcourse a Varga.What i meant was whenever we think of

> Hora among shadvargas ,we have a controversy.It is because of the

> ownership.

> But Shri K.N.Raoji had told about the Varanasi style of Vargas,where

> Hora will have Rashis.For example Aries rashi will have Aries and

> Taurus Horas.If that is the case our problem is solved.

> But as it is not universal,i thought we keep it as seperate.As you

> know,Hora problem is not typical to our problem.

>

> >>> I also see some very low level remarks like " trying to fool

> >>others "

>

> Pradeep:Chandrashekhar ji ,i have not used any bad words against

> respected astrologers and if you feel ''fooling others is wrong'' i

> can withdraw and apologize.You are elder and can advise me.

>

> the context was -Shri rath has clearly said amshaka points to rashi

> (has to be analysed in Rashi.Now Parashara has used amsha and

> amshaka in similar context.Thus if we shri Rath after knowing this

> (if it is because of igonorance -it is fine-we all makes

> mistakes),still is not willing to correct and keeps silence,i

> thought it is trying to fool others.

>

> I will try to refrain from using such.

>

> Regarding rest of the mail,i have given answers over seperate mails.

>

> Respect

> Pradeep

>

>

> <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> <chandrashekhar46 wrote:

> >

> > Dear Pradeep,

> >

> > " Pradeep: Hora is a universal problem and not specific to our

> > example,while thinking of shadvarga and we may deal this separately

> > as another thread. "

> >

> > Why keep hora for a separate dealing? Is it not a varga amongst

> the

> > shadvargas?

> >

> > " Pradeep:In this example Venus in the 7th is pointing to two

> things

> > (7th bhava and a Planet).But with ''in the varga of'' explanation

> > there is no planet - Just Lordship.It is then like for eg saying

> if 7th

> > house is Libra/Taurus/Aries or Scorpio some results will come. "

> >

> > So how does this differ from your contention that the Vargas of

> Venus or

> > Mars mean rasis of Venus or Mars? Or does that mean only one rasi

> when

> > 2nd for Karakamsha falling in Varga od Venus or Mars, that you

> interpret

> > as rasi?

> >

> > " Pradeep:I have never said ''in the vargas of'' - I have always

> said

> > ''Vargas of''.There is a big difference.I was talking about Venus

> or

> > Mars having Varga there(Not the ones lorded by them).Varge(ending

> with

> > ''ay'') can have different meanings(Not always in the Varga

> of).For

> > example Labh''e'' is in the 11th while Labhesh''e'' is just

> pointing to

> > 11th lord. Rashige is pointing to plural - In the Rashis.Thus i

> feel it is

> > contextual. "

> >

> > Could you explain the difference between " in the Vargas of "

> and " Vargas

> > of " ? If Varga of a planet does not refer to one being lorded by a

> > planet, pray what does it refer to? The simile of Labha and

> Labhesha

> > seems inappropriate. You are talking about Vargas in both the

> cases of

> > Vargas and not about Varga and Vargesha.

> >

> > Your reference to Rashige in the thread is unclear. Anyway what is

> the

> > word that says " in the rashi " in Sanskrit according to you., since

> you

> > feel Rashige is pointing to plural?

> >

> > " Pradeep:Can you pls translate - Meshadi + Rashige + Swamshe

> (What do

> > you think Rashige means)

> >

> > For me there are two possibilities for ''Meshadi Rashige

> Swamshe'' -

> >

> > a)Swamsha(Karakamsh

> >

> > a) in the Rashis from Mesha onwards

> >

> > b)Swamsha is a full chart with all Navamshas(K.N.Raojis view - In

> > meshadi rashis within Swamshe).This is literally correct,but will

> fail

> > with succeeding shlokas.If Swamsha is a full chart -from where do

> we

> > count 10th/4th etc from Swamsha references.Thus swamsha is

> > Karaka Grahas amsha(Swa -His,Amsha). I assume Raoji had Navamsha

> as a

> > full chart in mind.Similarly LateSanthanam could not interpret the

> Lagna

> > Shadvargake Shloka as the scholar some how misunderstood Sage.If

> we go

> > by the ancient texts in local language,analyzing amshas(within the

> frame

> > of 12 Rashis(Rashige Swamshe) can be clearly understood.

> >

> > Karakamsha is always the navamsha occuppied by AkmaKaraka and

> there is

> > no disagreement.After identification how we analyze is the

> > key.Analysis is always done w.r to a skeleton of 12 Rashis.Eg:AK

> Mars in

> > Mithuna Navamsha(no matter in which Rashi this Mars is

> > placed) will then point back to one SINGLE Mithuna Rashi.This has

> to be

> > understood as Mars having swamsha in Mithuna RASHI.It is

> > different from PLACED in Mithuna Rashi.You are mixing the two. "

> >

> > I would expect you to explain what you understand by

> > Meshadi+rashige+swamshe. For me it means Karakamsha in Mesha etc.

> Amshas.

> >

> > If we take your contention of Swamsha in Mesha etc. rasis, and not

> > amshas as is being hinted at, then amshas can not be named after

> rasis

> > and should have other nomenclature. If that be so how do you map

> it back

> > to rasi chart as is being suggested? And how does then see

> debility or

> > exaltation of a planet in navamsha chart as there are nothing that

> can

> > be termed as rasis there as is being advocated?

> >

> > I also fail to understand why only the first shloka of

> > Karakamshaphaladhyaaya is being quoted and not the 2nd and other

> shlokas

> > which clearly talking about MeshaaMshe and Vrishabhaamshe,

> removing any

> > ambiguity in any body's mind as to whether BPHS is referring to

> Rasi or

> > amshas? This is not contextual interpretation as is being claimed

> at

> > all, it seems to me.

> >

> > _Some comments for all those participating in the discussions:

> > _

> > I also see some very low level remarks like " trying to fool

> others " and

> > so on with regards to well respected and knowledgeable

> astrologers, in

> > off shoots of this thread. Just because bad words are used does

> not mean

> > a point is proved. One may hold a different opinion on some

> astrological

> > point but that does not give anyone a license to bad mouth others,

> even

> > in the heat of discussion on the divine science.

> >

> > I too do not think graha drishtis in navamsha or other D-charts to

> be

> > right, but I never use such language (of course, I may not be the

> role

> > model for modern day astrologers). There are umpteen number of

> > astrological texts that talk of aspects on Dreshkana lagna,

> navamsha

> > lagna and lagna, by the same graha, or any two of them

> etc.indicating

> > that some authorities did consider drishtis in those charts as

> they

> > could not refer to one rasi as had that been the case then

> Vargottam

> > lagna could have been mentioned there.

> >

> > Take care,

> >

> > Chandrashekhar.

> >

> >

> >

> > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > >

> > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > >

> > > Pls find my reply.

> > >

> > >

> <%40>

> > > <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > >

> > > > If we accept your argument for the sake of argument, how do you

> > > look at

> > > > Shukra or Mangal Varga in Hora chart? As to nine Aries navamsha

> > > and so

> > > > on, if trouble from rats etc is accepted in all 9 of them why

> only

> > > in

> > > > this particular case should there be an exception?

> > >

> > > Pradeep: Hora is a universal problem and not specific to our

> > > example,while thinking of shadvarga and we may deal this

> sepeartely

> > > as another thread.

> > >

> > > >

> > > > If you remember, there is a dictum that Venus in the 7th makes

> a

> > > person > libidinous. Now in that case this could happen with any

> > > lagna in a rasi > chart. So does that mean the dictum itself is

> not

> > > to be applied in the > rasi chart?

> > >

> > > Pradeep:In this example Venus in the 7th is pointing to two

> things

> > > (7th bhava and a Planet).But with ''in the varga of'' explanation

> > > there is no planet - Just Lordship.It is then like for eg saying

> if

> > > 7th house is Libra/Taurus/Aries or Scorpio some results will

> come.

> > >

> > > >

> > > > Personally speaking, I do not think any of the astrological

> > > principle > given is to be treated as a standalone principle that

> > > can be applied > without assessing the strength of a bhava.

> > > >

> > > > I think I have already explained that, as far as I

> think, " Varge "

> > > means > " in the varga of " and not " in the vargas of " . I am sure

> some

> > > one who is > a scholar of Sanskrit may know better, but " Varge "

> is

> > > certainly not plural.

> > >

> > > Pradeep:I have never said ''in the vargas of'' - I have always

> > > said ''Vargas of''.There is a big difference.I was talking about

> > > Venus or Mars having Varga there(Not the ones lorded by

> them).Varge

> > > (ending with ''ay'') can have different meanings(Not always in

> the

> > > Varga of).For example Labh''e'' is in the 11th while

> Labhesh''e'' is

> > > just pointing to 11th lord.

> > >

> > > Rashige is pointing to plural - In the Rashis.Thus i feel it is

> > > contextual.

> > >

> > > >

> > > > I seriously doubt that " Meshaadi rashige Swamshe " means what

> you

> > > are > trying to translate it to mean neither does the respected

> R.

> > > Santanam > who has translated it to mean as " Karakamsha identical

> > > with Aries etc. " > He also goes on to say in the notes that

> > > Karakamsha is the navamsha > occupied by the Atma karaka. And if

> you

> > > care to read the next shloka it > talks about " grihe

> > > Ushakamaarjaaraa meshaaMshe hyaatmakaarake " , leaving

> > > > no scope for interpretation as to what Parashara meant by

> > > Karakamsha. So > why you, or as you say MR. Rao, insist that

> > > Karakamsha means the Rasi > occupied in rasi chart, identical to

> the

> > > Navamsha occupied by the > Atmakaraka in navamsha, is not at all

> > > very clear.

> > >

> > > Pradeep:Can you pls translate - Meshadi + Rashige + Swamshe

> (What do

> > > you think Rashige means)

> > >

> > > For me there are two possibilities for ''Meshadi Rashige

> Swamshe'' -

> > >

> > > a)Swamsha(Karakamsha) in the Rashis from Mesha onwards

> > >

> > > b)Swamsha is a full chart with all Navamshas(K.N.Raojis view - In

> > > meshadi rashis within Swamshe).This is literally correct,but will

> > > fail with succeeding shlokas.If Swamsha is a full chart -from

> where

> > > do we count 10th/4th etc from Swamsha references.Thus swamsha is

> > > Karaka Grahas amsha(Swa -His,Amsha).

> > >

> > > I assume Raoji had Navamsha as a full chart in mind.Similarly

> Late

> > > Santhanam could not interpret the Lagna Shadvargake Shloka as the

> > > scholar some how misunderstood Sage.If we go by the ancient

> texts in

> > > local language,analyzing amshas(within the frame of 12 Rashis

> (Rashige

> > > Swamshe) can be clearly understood.

> > >

> > > Karakamsha is always the navamsha occuppied by AkmaKaraka and

> there

> > > is no disagreement.After identification how we analyze is the

> > > key.Analysis is always done w.r to a skeleton of 12 Rashis.Eg:AK

> > > Mars in Mithuna Navamsha(no matter in which Rashi this Mars is

> > > placed) will then point back to one SINGLE Mithuna Rashi.This

> has to

> > > be understood as Mars having swamsha in Mithuna RASHI.It is

> > > different from PLACED in Mithuna Rashi.You are mixing the two.

> > >

> > > >

> > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > >

> > >

> > > Respect

> > > Pradeep

> > > >

> > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > >

> > > > > Thanks a lot for your kind reply and trust.

> > > > > Yes i have learned this from your teachings -Grahas have to

> be

> > > > > strong to give karaka bhava nasha results.Hence once i had

> > > guessed

> > > > > Late Saddam husseins lagna as Simha ,with exalted Surya in

> the

> > > 9th.

> > > > >

> > > > > The whole point in bringing this up was to say that grahas in

> > > > > association with rashis bring in results.If you say Venus and

> > > Mars

> > > > > owning 2nd from karakamsha is the meaning- Then all those

> > > > > individuals having Karakamsha as

> > > > > 1)Aries

> > > > > 2)Virgo

> > > > > 3)Meena

> > > > > 4)Libra

> > > > >

> > > > > will behave in such a fashion as 2nd from these are owned by

> > > either

> > > > > Mars/Venus.

> > > > >

> > > > > Moreover,there are nine Aries navamshas,Nine Taurus etc

> > > repeating 12

> > > > > times within a Rashi of 360 degrees.And any of these can

> qualify

> > > for

> > > > > meeting our condition.Do you think it is such a general

> > > reference.

> > > > >

> > > > > On the other hand in any chart,Venus and Mars will have only

> one

> > > and

> > > > > only one navamsha/trmishamsha etc. Thus sage is talking about

> > > mars

> > > > > and Venus having vargas in the 2nd from karakamsha/swamsha

> rashis

> > > > > for light results and their yuti/aspects resulting in

> stronger

> > > > > results.

> > > > >

> > > > > ''Meshadi Rashige Swamshe -BPHS Karakamsha Phala adhyaya'' -

> is

> > > > > talking about Karaka graha having its amsha(swamsha) in

> rashis

> > > > > starting from mesha onwards.In other words plural is meant

> and

> > > > > meanings are contextual.

> > > > >

> > > > > Here sage is talking about graha having - swamshe where? - in

> > > > > meshadi rashige (rashis)

> > > > >

> > > > > Similarly -Tatra -(There) Bhrigwonkaraka Varge - Mars and

> Venus

> > > are

> > > > > having Vargas.

> > > > >

> > > > > Rashi is ofcourse the first Varga.When a graha is studied

> w.r to

> > > one

> > > > > full span of a Riksha/Kshethra/Bhava it is a study about the

> > > first

> > > > > varga.Within this Rashi if we are studying one half

> influences -

> > > it

> > > > > becomes Hora.One ninth it becomes navamsha.

> > > > >

> > > > > But no matter whether you get aries from aries rashi or

> taurus

> > > rashi

> > > > > we have only one Aries Rashi to tudy Rashi Tulya or Transit

> > > > > results.Why is it so.Because amshas relate to root Rashis.On

> the

> > > > > other hand you are assuming that the mapping back is

> pointing to

> > > > > placaments -which can happen only in case of Vragottama.

> > > > >

> > > > > Hope this is clear.

> > > > >

> > > > > I was able to read BPHS sanskrit shlokas and it is

> surprising to

> > > > > note why others have difference in opinion with Raoji.

> > > > > I will write it as another mail.

> > > > >

> > > > > Respect

> > > > > Pardeep

> > > > >

> > > > > -- In

> <%40>

> > > <%40>

> > > > > <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > > >

> > > > > > I would not have replied to the query had it not been from

> > > you. I

> > > > > hope

> > > > > > my answer does not begin another round of uncouth comments.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > First, the karaka Bhava nasha does not occur when a rasi

> owned

> > > by

> > > > > a

> > > > > > karaka happens to be in the bhava. It is the karaka itself

> that

> > > > > has to

> > > > > > occupy the bhava for which it is karaka. My personal

> opinion is

> > > > > that

> > > > > > Karaka bhava nasha occurs only when the karaka so

> occupying the

> > > > > bhava is

> > > > > > strong and that it does not happen always. Perhaps the

> saying

> > > > > arose out

> > > > > > of the way Guru and Shukra behave when occupying their

> karaka

> > > > > sthanas.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > I would not go into what is the correct understanding of

> > > > > shadvargas at

> > > > > > this point of time, or shadabalas for that matter. But I

> would

> > > > > like to

> > > > > > point out that as far as my little knowledge of Sanskrit

> goes,

> > > > > Varge is

> > > > > > not plural of varga. It only means " in the Varga " .

> > > > > >

> > > > > > By the way, I have not understood what you mean by " Basic

> > > > > > understanding- Shadvargas are found either for our natal

> Lagna

> > > or

> > > > > other

> > > > > > Planets " . Rasi is also one of the Shadavarga according to

> > > whatever

> > > > > of

> > > > > > astrology that I have read. Has some less known text

> proposed

> > > > > otherwise?

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekharji

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > My doubt is if 9th bhava is Simha will we have Karaka

> Bhava

> > > > > nasha.I

> > > > > > > feel Surya has to be placed in the 9th.Similarly two papa

> > > rashis

> > > > > > > bordering Lagna do not result in Papakartari.Grahas bring

> > > such

> > > > > > > results.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > If we are not prepared to understand the baisc meaning of

> > > > > Shadvargas

> > > > > > > as advised by sages,erroneous translations will

> definitely

> > > > > result.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Basic understanding- Shadvargas are found either for our

> > > natal

> > > > > Lagna

> > > > > > > or other Planets.If anyone can find/derive otherwise

> please

> > > > > > > demonstrate through an example -any chart.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > We have 108 navamsha sectors and a single planet can have

> > > Aries

> > > > > > > navamsha in 9 possible ways.But then how are we able to

> bring

> > > > > any of

> > > > > > > these navamshas to a single Aries no matter,where(Rashis)

> > > they

> > > > > are

> > > > > > > falling within Rashi chakra.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Sage can very well mean shadvargas of Venus/Mars.He can

> > > point to

> > > > > > > Venus and Mars having various amshas ie

> > > > > navamsha/drekkana/trimshamsha

> > > > > > > etc in the rashi which is 2nd to Karakamsha.As you have

> > > rightly

> > > > > > > identified - Nobody can find dwadshamsha or for that

> matter

> > > any

> > > > > varga

> > > > > > > within ''divisional spans'' and sage will never expect

> such a

> > > > > thought

> > > > > > > from students.But everyone is thinking of ''Vargas owned

> by

> > > Mars

> > > > > and

> > > > > > > Kuja''.As shadvargas are not possible within divisional

> > > spans,no

> > > > > body

> > > > > > > is sure on what to do and some smart jyotishis like shri

> Rath

> > > > > settles

> > > > > > > down with navamsha even when ''Varge'' plural has been

> > > > > > > mentioned.''There are four such navamshas'' is also not

> > > > > proper.At a

> > > > > > > time only one varga is possible. On the other hand Venus

> and

> > > > > Shukra

> > > > > > > can have ''Varge''(multiple vargas) - in the same rashi

> at a

> > > > > time.

> > > > > > > w.r to doubt regarding Hora-This is not specific to this

> > > > > shloka ,it

> > > > > > > is a common problem.

> > > > > > > But the basic thing is more number of vargas stronger the

> > > result.

> > > > > > > '' If the 10th house has more Saturnian Vargas'' - does

> not

> > > > > point to

> > > > > > > 10th house having capricorn or aquarius.But whether

> Saturn is

> > > > > having

> > > > > > > many amshas/vargas in the Rashi acting as 10th House.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Thus the translation itself is not proper.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > I will explaion it in another mail.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Respect

> > > > > > > Pradeep

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> <%40>

> > > <%40>

> > > > > <%40>

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

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

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > I can not comment on why Sanjay Rath interpreted the

> way he

> > > > > did. I

> > > > > > > only

> > > > > > > > gave what he said.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > I have already indicated that this discussion is

> leading to

> > > > > nowhere.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > One thing I would like to understand is why must Varge

> mean

> > > > > > > Shadvarga as

> > > > > > > > is being insisted, if we think that it can not be

> navamsha

> > > > > ruled by

> > > > > > > > Shukra or Kuja? When karakamsha means navamsha

> occupied by

> > > > > > > Atmakaraka,

> > > > > > > > how do you find a Dwadashaamsha next to Karakamsha in a

> > > > > navamsha

> > > > > > > chakra

> > > > > > > > or vise a versa as one s spread over 3 degree 20

> minutes

> > > and

> > > > > the

> > > > > > > other

> > > > > > > > over 1 degree of the zodiacal arc.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > About the 12th from Shani it would be better if one

> also

> > > reads

> > > > > what

> > > > > > > BPHS

> > > > > > > > says about 12th from Karakamsha wherein " Kaarakaamshaad

> > > vyaye

> > > > > > > saure... "

> > > > > > > > is clearly mentioned. So the 12th from Karakamsha is

> > > clearly

> > > > > > > brought

> > > > > > > > out. There in you will find why the reference to

> paparxe

> > > and

> > > > > its

> > > > > > > > meaning. Parashara says that if such a Shani also

> occupies

> > > a

> > > > > > > malefic

> > > > > > > > rasi then the person worships kshudra devata. But then

> the

> > > word

> > > > > > > rashi

> > > > > > > > could also be used to indicate the navamsha, as the

> word

> > > Rasi

> > > > > means

> > > > > > > a

> > > > > > > > heap and could be used to indicate the navamsha rasi.

> It

> > > need

> > > > > not

> > > > > > > every

> > > > > > > > time mean rasi as in rasi chakra.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > There are too many yogas where position of a graha in

> > > > > Karakamsha or

> > > > > > > > Swaamsha, alone, is given to think that Karakamsha is

> to be

> > > > > taken

> > > > > > > back

> > > > > > > > to rasi chakra and read there. Those shlokas do not

> prove

> > > KNR's

> > > > > > > views at

> > > > > > > > all. Some shlokas could however be interpreted to

> coincide

> > > with

> > > > > > > KNR's views.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Of course this is my personal view and others could

> hold a

> > > > > > > different view.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Thanks for the explanation.

> > > > > > > > > As you say,we should not see shlokas in

> isolation.Seeing

> > > the

> > > > > > > > > stream,preceding,succeeding is necessary.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > In the given case why is sage mentioning ''Varge''

> if it

> > > is

> > > > > > > > > understood as an amsha arrangement.For eg in none of

> the

> > > > > preceding

> > > > > > > > > shlokas we have that usage.Tatra Ravou etc.

> > > > > > > > > I dont know about 2 or 9th -anyways it is not our

> major

> > > > > concern.

> > > > > > > > > Two possibilities.1)Mars and Kuja having Varga is

> > > > > mentioned.2)

> > > > > > > Varga

> > > > > > > > > owned by Kuja is mentioned.I will go for 1.By having

> a

> > > > > certain

> > > > > > > rashi

> > > > > > > > > results cnnot be predicted.Then individuals with

> lagna as

> > > > > papa

> > > > > > > rashis

> > > > > > > > > should all be treated as bad.In a papa rashi ifsome

> some

> > > > > graha is

> > > > > > > > > placed or having amsha results can be predicted.

> > > > > > > > > Venus and Mars having amsha there is being

> mentioned.Shri

> > > > > Raths

> > > > > > > > > translation is very strange.Pls see shri Suryanaain

> raos

> > > > > > > translation

> > > > > > > > > in this case.

> > > > > > > > > As karakamsha is found from navamsha,we may say this

> > > Varga is

> > > > > > > > > navamsha.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Now there is an inconsistency.Sutras will be

> short.Why

> > > did

> > > > > sage

> > > > > > > give

> > > > > > > > > superflous info.Why did Sage say Varga,if it is

> clearly

> > > > > known.It

> > > > > > > > > clearly means the previous ones are graha placements

> from

> > > > > > > karakamsha

> > > > > > > > > rashi.And this one points to amsha in the 2nd from

> such a

> > > > > rashi.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > If some one wants to say sage is talking about

> > > shadvargas -

> > > > > Then

> > > > > > > > > again reference is karakamsha rashi as shadvargas

> can be

> > > > > seen only

> > > > > > > > > w.r to rashi.I prefer with first translation.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Now the most important shloka -Su-80-Paparkshe mande

> > > > > > > shudradevatha.

> > > > > > > > > Sage is talking about Karakamasha falling in papa

> Riksha

> > > > > (Rashi)

> > > > > > > and

> > > > > > > > > Saturns placement there.Rashi isclearly mentioned.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Now why is Sage mentioning Paprkshe or Rashi

> specifically

> > > > > will be

> > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > question in mind.For all other cases he was

> mentioning

> > > > > placement

> > > > > > > of

> > > > > > > > > planets in karakamsha Rashi.Thus he could say Tatra

> > > Ravou etc

> > > > > > > without

> > > > > > > > > specyfying Rashi, as it is understood.In this case he

> > > has no

> > > > > other

> > > > > > > > > way as a malefic Rashi can only be expressed with

> help of

> > > > > word

> > > > > > > > > Riksha or Rashi.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar ji kindly give your views.

> > > > > > > > > I would request shri Narasimha Rao etc to clarify

> their

> > > > > > > position.Shri

> > > > > > > > > K.N.Raojis views are being proved true through these

> > > shlokas.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Respect

> > > > > > > > > Pradeep

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> <%40>

> > > <%40>

> > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > <%40>

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

> Chandrashekhar

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

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > He says " Venus or Mars owning the second from

> swamsha

> > > > > produces

> > > > > > > > > passion

> > > > > > > > > > and illicit relationship "

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Where is the question of all shadvargas here? I

> have

> > > not

> > > > > seen

> > > > > > > that

> > > > > > > > > > interpretation by others whose commentaries on

> Jaimini

> > > > > sutras, I

> > > > > > > > > also

> > > > > > > > > > possess. It is the 2nd house (Sanjay) or 9th (Some

> > > other

> > > > > > > > > commentators)

> > > > > > > > > > to the Swamsha. The next navamsha has to be ruled

> by

> > > either

> > > > > > > Venus

> > > > > > > > > or

> > > > > > > > > > Mars and there are 4 such navamshas. Some

> commentators

> > > say

> > > > > that

> > > > > > > it

> > > > > > > > > is

> > > > > > > > > > enough if the second from swamsha happens to be

> any of

> > > the

> > > > > > > > > shadvargas.

> > > > > > > > > > To me that is strange translation as Swamsha

> > > necessarily

> > > > > occurs

> > > > > > > in

> > > > > > > > > > Navamsha. But then the logic of those commentators

> may

> > > be

> > > > > that

> > > > > > > > > amsha can

> > > > > > > > > > indicate any one of the divisions of any of the 6 D

> > > > > charts. I

> > > > > > > would

> > > > > > > > > not

> > > > > > > > > > think that is right, specially as in Hora chart

> that

> > > could

> > > > > never

> > > > > > > > > occur.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > I will be interested to know how Shri Rath has

> > > > > interpreted

> > > > > > > this

> > > > > > > > > > > shloka.Also i would like to see your view.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Do you think technically this is possible if it

> is in

> > > > > navamsha

> > > > > > > > > (can all

> > > > > > > > > > > shadvargas fall there)

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > SU. 52.-Tatra bhrigwongaraka varge paradarikaha.

> If

> > > the

> > > > > 9th

> > > > > > > from

> > > > > > > > > > > Karakamsa falls in one of the shadvargas of

> Sukra and

> > > > > Kuja, he

> > > > > > > > > will be

> > > > > > > > > > > fond of others' wives.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Respect

> > > > > > > > > > > Pradeep

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

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

> ----

> > > ----

> > > > > -

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

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.8.13/844 -

> > > Release

> > > > > > > Date:

> > > > > > > > > 6/11/2007 5:10 PM

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been

> removed]

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

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

> ----

> > > -

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

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.8.13/844 -

> Release

> > > > > Date:

> > > > > > > 6/11/2007 5:10 PM

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >