navamsa and astrology 8thjuly07

July 8, 2007

sairaman

dear members i came across a wounderful book in thissubject

NAVAMSA IN ASTROLOGY BY CHANDULAL S. PATEL

Sagar publications 72 janpath 3320648 newdelhi 203 pages may be around INR 200/-

to 250

the book full of information and so many practical confirmed examples every so

many time we read it shall give full pleasure and reading a very good in this

subject

very exhaustive practical examples explained

i have checked up and mostly confirms the results

a good book to be our house library for people who have interest in thissubject

i wanted to write about this book as i see so mu ch maessage on thissubject and

nearly more than 15 to 20 days same heading is coming on opening this mail

if anybody applied rules forecasted earlier or experienced on the principles if

explained with charts it shall be very useful and nice to read more of theopry

is coming less of practical discussion with example charts of very well known

biodata

thank y all members wishing best regards and a happy sunday weekend

vijayadas_pradeep <vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

Dear Chandrashekhar ji

Yes ofcourse.It is pointing to the swamsha of the relevant graha(in

this case AK) in meshadi Rashige(Rashis).

Each Rashi has amsha of other Rashis within it.There is amsha Rashi

samandha.Thus navamsha rashi is just an amsha of another rashi

falling in a rashi.One can see this then w.r to the root rashi.Both

are needed.Ifplanet is in aries it is placed in the rashi or kshethra

of Aries.If it is placed in aries amsha it is not placed in aries

rashi but linking to Aries rashi through amsha rashi sambandha.Lagna

shadvargake shloka cannot be explained,if this concept is accepted.It

is not my concept,but explained in numerous shlokas ,written

thousands of years ago.

Regarding vargas of shukra,it has been already explained in another

mail.

If you think ,i do not understand shad is six it is fine.You may

kindly note that there is an etc at the end of 2nd point.The main

purpose was to say that it is not lordships but vargas.Just gave 2

examples and mentioned etc.

Respect

Pradeep

, Chandrashekhar

<chandrashekhar46 wrote:

>

> Dear Pradeep,

>

> Pradeep:There is a misunderstanding.It is not relating to the SAME

> Rashi.It is placed in one rashi and Relating to another Rashi.

(Rashige

> Swamshe/Paparkshe Guruna Drishte etc are examples).Rashi is the key

> word.But if Varga has to be meant sage makes it clear -

eg:Bhrigwonkaraka

> Varge.

>

> Do you mean that the word Amsha in " Swaamshe " does not refer to a

Varga

> at all? I do not think so.

>

> " Pradeep:As you know, Karakamsha is not about AK Placed in Mesha

> Rashi.But about AK having Amsha in Mesha Rashi(through amsha rashi

> link).For the second condition,AK can be placed in any Rashi.Thus

fear

> happens when Ak has navamsha in Aries. "

>

> I do not think what you say is right. Do you mean that if Jupiter

is in,

> say, Taurus in 11 degrees being the graha having highest degrees

devoid

> of rasis, it would be treated to occupy Mesha rasi and not Taurus

rashi-

> Mesha navamsha? I doubt it. And why should, in case of fear, should

the

> amsha be placed in any other rasi in Mesha navamsha, if your

contention

> of Karakamsha being related to rasis only is correct? These shlokas

are

> in continuation and do not speak of any different parameters for

amshas,

> as far as i can find in BPHS. I fail to understand the logic behind

> these divergent views on one and the same factor the Karakamsha/

Swamsha.

>

> " Pradeep:What does navamsha rashi mean is the key.For that we can

only

> rely on texts (non english translation) from scholars trained

> in Parampara.As BPHS says they are amsha in Rashis.How can we see

> transit Result from the Rashi for any identical navamsha.How do we

> equate them through Tulya Principle.They have an inherent link is

my

> understanding. "

>

> What do you understand by navamsha rashi? What Parampara are you

talking

> about? Will you clarify? I am sure a Parampara must have its own

ancient

> texts to rely on that are available to those of its lineage and

also

> public at large. I am sure if you read Chandra Kala nadi you will

> understand how transits can be related to navamshas. No body denies

the

> link between rasis and amshas. It is also very obvious.

Unfortunately it

> seems that no one wants to understand it.

>

> " Pradeep:I have never said anything as you have mentioned

> above.Moreover shadvargas CANNOT be seen in navamsha.They are

> divisions of a Rashi.Moreover i have always said shadvargas are

found

> either for our natal Lagna or planets.Can you pls demonstrate

> if it is possible otherwise. "

>

> I distinctly remember you writing that the vargas refer to

shadvargas of

> Venus and mars, in connection with a shloka that I had quoted. Do

you

> think that contention of yours is no longer applicable when

reference is

> to Vargas? Even in the next paragraph of your reply you refer to

> " shadvargake " .

>

> " Pradeep:Meshadi Rashige Swamshe is explaining this.Rashi Tulya is

> explaining this.Transit results are explainign this.Lagna

shadvargake

> shloka is explaining this. "

>

> I do not think so. Do you mean to say that when reference is to

Mesha

> navamsha in Meena rasi it refers only to Mesha rasi? Or do you mean

> there is nothing like Navamsha rashi. If so why talk about Mesha

> navamsha etc. at alll? After all, as you contend, Mesha could only

be a

> rasi and anot an independent of Mesha rasi navamsha.

>

> " Pradeep:I have never said so.Pls show the reference. "

>

> I get tired looking for reference in long posts but since you doubt

my

> word, here it is. If you still doubt you said this you can just

scroll

> down and see it in your answer that appears in one of the mails

below.

>

> " When we say shadvargas of Shukra,the Vargas are 1)Rashi in which >

>

> Shukra is placed and not Libra and Taurus. 2)navamshaka rashi in> >

> which shukra has amsha etc. "

>

> Take care,

> Chandrashekhar.

>

> vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> >

> > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> >

> > Pls find my reply

> >

> > <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > >

> > > Dear Pradeep,

> > >

> > > I am really confused as to what you are trying to convey. For me

> > it is > simple as to what is Navamsha. It is an area within a rasi

> > owned by any > planet which is under influence of any of the nine

> > planets. Whether you > call it as relating to the same rasi

through

> > amsha sambandha or you call > it yuti in Navamsha, does it have

> > different implications? If so what?

> >

> > Pradeep:There is a misunderstanding.It is not relating to the SAME

> > Rashi.It is placed in one rashi and Relating to another Rashi.

> > (Rashige Swamshe/Paparkshe Guruna Drishte etc are examples).Rashi

is

> > the key word.But if Varga has to be meant sage makes it clear -

> > eg:Bhrigwonkaraka Varge.

> >

> > >

> > > Nobody is disputing what BPHS says but why ignore what it means?

> > You > have not answered as to whether accepting your premise, we

> > treat one to > have fear from Mice and cats if AK falls in Mesha

> > rasi or Mesha navamsha > and why the fact that BPHS mentions

> > Meshaamshe there is to be ignored. > Do we take Santanam's

> > translation to be incorrect?

> >

> > Pradeep:As you know, Karakamsha is not about AK Placed in Mesha

> > Rashi.But about AK having Amsha in Mesha Rashi(through amsha rashi

> > link).For the second condition,AK can be placed in any Rashi.Thus

> > fear happens when Ak has navamsha in Aries.

> >

> > >

> > > I do not understand as to why I have to take amsha mentioned

> > > specifically to mean as rashi. Or same when the indication is

> > clearly > about navamsha rashi and not Rashi of rasi chakra.

> >

> > Pradeep:What does navamsha rashi mean is the key.For that we can

> > only rely on texts (non english translation) from scholars trained

> > in Parampara.As BPHS says they are amsha in Rashis.How can we see

> > transit Result from the Rashi for any identical navamsha.How do we

> > equate them through Tulya Principle.They have an inherent link is

> > my understanding.

> >

> > >

> > > I fail to understand the concept of shadvargas to be seen in

only

> > rasi > and navamsha, at all, if shadvargaas are to be seen at all.

> > Shadvargas > mean six types of Vargas and are Rasi, Hora,

Dreshkana,

> > Navamsha, > Dwadashaamsha and Trimshamsha. May I ask which classic

> > says that only > Rasi and navamsha make up the 6 Vargas? I have

not

> > also seen any > astrological classic saying that the shadvargas

are

> > on lagna only, would > like you to quote any reliable source for

> > this.

> >

> > Pradeep:I have never said anything as you have mentioned

> > above.Moreover shadvargas CANNOT be seen in navamsha.They are

> > divisions of a Rashi.Moreover i have always said shadvargas are

> > found either for our natal Lagna or planets.Can you pls

demonstrate

> > if it is possible otherwise.

> >

> > >

> > > I have not yet understood exactly what you mean by " Navamsha

> > Rashi is > nothing but the Rashi on to which a particular sector

> > within a Rashi is > relating back. " .

> >

> > Pradeep:Meshadi Rashige Swamshe is explaining this.Rashi Tulya is

> > explaining this.Transit results are explainign this.Lagna

> > shadvargake shloka is explaining this.

> >

> > >

> > > I do like Tarka and Pramana to form the basis of an argument,

but

> > yet > have to see that especially in connection with the

karakamsha

> > adhayaaya > shlokas of BPHS that are being quoted, so far. same

for

> > assuming > Shadvarga to mean only two Vargas and not six. If there

> > is any pramana > for that be kind to share the same.

> >

> > Pradeep:I have never said so.Pls show the reference.

> >

> > >

> > > Chandrashekhar.

> > >

> >

> > Respect

> > Pradeep

> > >

> > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Dear Chandrashehar ji

> > > >

> > <%40>

> > > > <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > >

> > > > > I fail to understand what you are driving at. If Mithuna is

the

> > > > > karakamsha, second from it can no doubt only be Cancer

> > navamsha but

> > > > it

> > > > > does not necessarily to lie in Cancer rasi as you propose.

As

> > you,

> > > > > yourself, point out Cancer navamsha occurs in more than one

> > rasi.

> > > >

> > > > Chandrashekhar ji

> > > >

> > > > I too am failing to understand why this has to lie in Cancer

> > Rashi.

> > > > It will lie in Cancer Rashi only in the case of Vargottama.

> > > > Let us take your chart.Your Moon is placed in Libra Rashi

(Mesha

> > > > Navamsha) while your Venus is placed in Makara Rashi(Mesha

> > > > Navamha).But are we differentiating the Navamshas.No we just

> > treat

> > > > both (Moon and Venus) as in Aries Navamsha.How is it

> > possible.Within

> > > > a Rashi another rashi is having amsha.This amsha can root back

> > to its

> > > > main rashi through Varga sambandha(think how a planet is

linking

> > to

> > > > the houses lorded by it ,though placed elsewhere).The key is

> > when we

> > > > see two planets as yuti in a navamsha -they are and can be so

> > only if

> > > > they are so disposed in rashi.In such cases we call them

> > > > vargottama.In the other cases they are not yuti,but relating

to

> > the

> > > > same rashi through amsha sambandha.

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > One certainly can interpret sutras the way one likes and one

> > > > certainly

> > > > > can. The question is that does that by itself prove any

other

> > > > > interpretation t be wrong? I would not think so.

> > > >

> > > > It does not prove by itself as you have said.But logically we

can

> > > > prove why such intrpretations are wrong based on classical

> > > > definitions.

> > > > >

> > > > > I see no reason to interpret karakamsha as Rasi holding the

> > amsha

> > > > > occupied by Atmakaraka, neither have I seen any logical

> > explanation

> > > > to

> > > > > support that argument.

> > > >

> > > > 1)In BPHS it is clearly mentioned ''Meshadi RASHIGE Swamshe''

> > > > 2)At many places Rashua,Paparkshe Guruna Drishte,etc

> > are ,mentioned -

> > > > but you prefer to think that it is not Rashi.

> > > >

> > > > Thus there is logic.

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > As to intensity of result variation that is given, I presume

> > you

> > > > are

> > > > > talking about an opinion of some one and hopefully not some

> > sutra

> > > > that

> > > > > is so interpreted.

> > > >

> > > > Yes it is the view of some one ,but it is logically

> > comprehensable

> > > > for me.

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > I am not able to understand why at one point Guru Varga can

> > mean

> > > > Chandra

> > > > > placed in navamsha etc. of Guru but at other Shukra Varga

does

> > not

> > > > mean

> > > > > that.

> > > >

> > > > When we say shadvargas of Shukra,the Vargas are 1)Rashi in

which

> > > > Shukra is placed and not Libra and Taurus. 2)navamshaka rashi

in

> > > > which shukra has amsha etc.

> > > >

> > > > But when we say chandra in Guru varga we are talking about

> > shadvargas

> > > > of Chandra in the Rashi of Guru.

> > > >

> > > > Thus shadvargas are always for a planet or Lagna.

> > > >

> > > > > I also can not understand why " Navamsha Rashi is nothing

but

> > the

> > > > Rashi

> > > > > on to which a particular sector within a Rashi is relating

> > back. " ,

> > > > as

> > > > > you so eloquently put it. I was always taught that navamsha

is

> > oner

> > > > of

> > > > > the nine parts within a rasi that is ruled by different

grahas

> > > > according

> > > > > to well defined rules laid down by the sages.

> > > >

> > > > My answer is how can we seetransit results for any of the 9

aries

> > > > navamsh sectors from 1 Aries Rashi.

> > > > How can we see Rashi Tulya etc from one Aries ,no matter where

> > the

> > > > sector was derived from.

> > > >

> > > > This points to navamsha as an amshaka in another Rashi (or

same

> > in

> > > > case of Vargottama)

> > > >

> > > > But then I am only a

> > > > > student of astrology who is yet to achieve the full

knowledge

> > of

> > > > the

> > > > > science.

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > > If you are a student ,what am i.Debates help us to understand

the

> > > > underlying principles in a better fashion.I agree that both

the

> > > > parties should be sincere and should not argue for the sake of

> > it.As

> > > > you always say based on Tarka and Pramana.

> > > >

> > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > >

> > > > Respect

> > > > Pradeep

> > > > >

> > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Assume Karakamsha Rashi is Mithuna.Then second from it can

> > only be

> > > > > > Cancer no matter whether one is seeing this from

> > a ''navamsha''

> > > > > > arrangement or ''Rashi'' arrangement(In fact both are

falling

> > > > within

> > > > > > the same skeleton).

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Please read Sutras 52 and 53 together

> > > > > >

> > > > > > 1)Venus and Mars having Varge(amshas or simply Navamsha)

in

> > the

> > > > 2nd

> > > > > > from Karakamsha Rashi - Fond of others wives. Method -

> > Identify the

> > > > > > vargas of Venus & Mars in this chart.If they are in

> > > > Cancer,condition

> > > > > > satisfied.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > 2)Venus and Mars joining or aspecting the 2nd from

Karakamsha

> > > > Rashi-

> > > > > > Similar Habits till end of Life.Method - Check if

Venus/Mars

> > is

> > > > > > placed in Cancer or they aspect Cancer -condition

> > > > satisfied.Aspects

> > > > > > are always w.r to Rashi placements and not ''amsha

> > > > > > dispositions''.Hence aspect is not mentioned in the first

> > case.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Intensity of Result Variation (Sutra 52 & 53) - Placements

> > and

> > > > > > aspects are more powerful than Varga Sambandha.Eg-

Kemadruma -

> > > > Planets

> > > > > > placed on either sides of Chandra navamshaka Rashi

results in

> > > > > > cancellation.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Guru Varga - can have meaning only with reference to

planet

> > or

> > > > lagna -

> > > > > > eg Chandra having Guru Varga - Chandra should be placed in

> > > > > > Dhanu/Meena,Its Navamsha is in

> > > > > > Dhanu/Meena,Drekkana/Trimshamsha/Saptamsha is in

Dhanu/Meena

> > etc.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > 12th is fine - Especially as Parashara and Vyaye is

quoted.In

> > > > Sutras

> > > > > > 12th etc will be defined upfront.For me there is no real

> > moving

> > > > back

> > > > > > or bringing back to rashi chakra.They are falling there

> > > > itslef.12th

> > > > > > from Karakamsha rashi is a papa rashi with saturn.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Navamsha Rashi is nothing but the Rashi on to which a

> > particular

> > > > > > sector within a Rashi is relating back.Analysis are always

> > done

> > > > w.r

> > > > > > to a skeleton of 12 Rashis.Each diagram we draw shows the

> > same

> > > > > > skeleton(As 1 single human body) but different ways in

which

> > > > planets

> > > > > > or our lagna are relating(subtle physiological functions

> > again

> > > > within

> > > > > > 1 body).

> > > > > >

> > > > > > As long as we treat them as seperate entities ,the point

> > cannot be

> > > > > > driven home.If you can think of Lagna shadvargake shloka

with

> > > > > > aspectual magnitudes,i feel things should be evident.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > It is clear beyond any ambiguity that ,sage will nver give

> > any

> > > > > > superfluos info especially in sutras.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Ofcourse i respect your views too.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > 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

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

July 10, 2007

Dear Sairamanji,

namaste.

This is the same book from where I have quoted the shlokas on this

thread. there is another good book, written by same author,from

which also I have quoted on this thread- 'Navamsa and Nadi

astrology " . My interest lies in reading these books rather than the

sources from where these shlokas are picked up. Because when the

scholars who have spent Life time in astrology (And not part time

like me)read and give their commentaries, I find it more helpful to

read these,rather then to try to go through the whole process again,

and waste this short Life. In a few years I would be leaving astrology

too,because there is no end to this subject, and we have to give our

time to spiritual persuits at some stage of our life, otherwise one

may spend 100 Life times in this science and yet not become a perfect

astrologer like Varamihira or the others.

regards,

Bhaskar.

, sairam nat <sairaman53 wrote:

>

> sairaman

>

> dear members i came across a wounderful book in thissubject

>

> NAVAMSA IN ASTROLOGY BY CHANDULAL S. PATEL

>

> Sagar publications 72 janpath 3320648 newdelhi 203 pages may be

around INR 200/- to 250

>

> the book full of information and so many practical confirmed

examples every so many time we read it shall give full pleasure and

reading a very good in this subject

>

> very exhaustive practical examples explained

>

> i have checked up and mostly confirms the results

>

> a good book to be our house library for people who have interest in

thissubject

>

> i wanted to write about this book as i see so mu ch maessage on

thissubject and nearly more than 15 to 20 days same heading is coming

on opening this mail

>

> if anybody applied rules forecasted earlier or experienced on the

principles if explained with charts it shall be very useful and nice

to read more of theopry is coming less of practical discussion with

example charts of very well known biodata

>

> thank y all members wishing best regards and a happy sunday weekend

>

> vijayadas_pradeep <vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

Dear Chandrashekhar ji

>

> Yes ofcourse.It is pointing to the swamsha of the relevant graha(in

> this case AK) in meshadi Rashige(Rashis).

> Each Rashi has amsha of other Rashis within it.There is amsha Rashi

> samandha.Thus navamsha rashi is just an amsha of another rashi

> falling in a rashi.One can see this then w.r to the root rashi.Both

> are needed.Ifplanet is in aries it is placed in the rashi or kshethra

> of Aries.If it is placed in aries amsha it is not placed in aries

> rashi but linking to Aries rashi through amsha rashi sambandha.Lagna

> shadvargake shloka cannot be explained,if this concept is accepted.It

> is not my concept,but explained in numerous shlokas ,written

> thousands of years ago.

>

> Regarding vargas of shukra,it has been already explained in another

> mail.

> If you think ,i do not understand shad is six it is fine.You may

> kindly note that there is an etc at the end of 2nd point.The main

> purpose was to say that it is not lordships but vargas.Just gave 2

> examples and mentioned etc.

>

> Respect

> Pradeep

>

> , Chandrashekhar

> <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> >

> > Dear Pradeep,

> >

> > Pradeep:There is a misunderstanding.It is not relating to the SAME

> > Rashi.It is placed in one rashi and Relating to another Rashi.

> (Rashige

> > Swamshe/Paparkshe Guruna Drishte etc are examples).Rashi is the key

> > word.But if Varga has to be meant sage makes it clear -

> eg:Bhrigwonkaraka

> > Varge.

> >

> > Do you mean that the word Amsha in " Swaamshe " does not refer to a

> Varga

> > at all? I do not think so.

> >

> > " Pradeep:As you know, Karakamsha is not about AK Placed in Mesha

> > Rashi.But about AK having Amsha in Mesha Rashi(through amsha rashi

> > link).For the second condition,AK can be placed in any Rashi.Thus

> fear

> > happens when Ak has navamsha in Aries. "

> >

> > I do not think what you say is right. Do you mean that if Jupiter

> is in,

> > say, Taurus in 11 degrees being the graha having highest degrees

> devoid

> > of rasis, it would be treated to occupy Mesha rasi and not Taurus

> rashi-

> > Mesha navamsha? I doubt it. And why should, in case of fear, should

> the

> > amsha be placed in any other rasi in Mesha navamsha, if your

> contention

> > of Karakamsha being related to rasis only is correct? These shlokas

> are

> > in continuation and do not speak of any different parameters for

> amshas,

> > as far as i can find in BPHS. I fail to understand the logic behind

> > these divergent views on one and the same factor the Karakamsha/

> Swamsha.

> >

> > " Pradeep:What does navamsha rashi mean is the key.For that we can

> only

> > rely on texts (non english translation) from scholars trained

> > in Parampara.As BPHS says they are amsha in Rashis.How can we see

> > transit Result from the Rashi for any identical navamsha.How do we

> > equate them through Tulya Principle.They have an inherent link is

> my

> > understanding. "

> >

> > What do you understand by navamsha rashi? What Parampara are you

> talking

> > about? Will you clarify? I am sure a Parampara must have its own

> ancient

> > texts to rely on that are available to those of its lineage and

> also

> > public at large. I am sure if you read Chandra Kala nadi you will

> > understand how transits can be related to navamshas. No body denies

> the

> > link between rasis and amshas. It is also very obvious.

> Unfortunately it

> > seems that no one wants to understand it.

> >

> > " Pradeep:I have never said anything as you have mentioned

> > above.Moreover shadvargas CANNOT be seen in navamsha.They are

> > divisions of a Rashi.Moreover i have always said shadvargas are

> found

> > either for our natal Lagna or planets.Can you pls demonstrate

> > if it is possible otherwise. "

> >

> > I distinctly remember you writing that the vargas refer to

> shadvargas of

> > Venus and mars, in connection with a shloka that I had quoted. Do

> you

> > think that contention of yours is no longer applicable when

> reference is

> > to Vargas? Even in the next paragraph of your reply you refer to

> > " shadvargake " .

> >

> > " Pradeep:Meshadi Rashige Swamshe is explaining this.Rashi Tulya is

> > explaining this.Transit results are explainign this.Lagna

> shadvargake

> > shloka is explaining this. "

> >

> > I do not think so. Do you mean to say that when reference is to

> Mesha

> > navamsha in Meena rasi it refers only to Mesha rasi? Or do you mean

> > there is nothing like Navamsha rashi. If so why talk about Mesha

> > navamsha etc. at alll? After all, as you contend, Mesha could only

> be a

> > rasi and anot an independent of Mesha rasi navamsha.

> >

> > " Pradeep:I have never said so.Pls show the reference. "

> >

> > I get tired looking for reference in long posts but since you doubt

> my

> > word, here it is. If you still doubt you said this you can just

> scroll

> > down and see it in your answer that appears in one of the mails

> below.

> >

> > " When we say shadvargas of Shukra,the Vargas are 1)Rashi in which >

> >

> > Shukra is placed and not Libra and Taurus. 2)navamshaka rashi in> >

> > which shukra has amsha etc. "

> >

> > Take care,

> > Chandrashekhar.

> >

> > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > >

> > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > >

> > > Pls find my reply

> > >

> > > <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > >

> > > > I am really confused as to what you are trying to convey. For me

> > > it is > simple as to what is Navamsha. It is an area within a rasi

> > > owned by any > planet which is under influence of any of the nine

> > > planets. Whether you > call it as relating to the same rasi

> through

> > > amsha sambandha or you call > it yuti in Navamsha, does it have

> > > different implications? If so what?

> > >

> > > Pradeep:There is a misunderstanding.It is not relating to the SAME

> > > Rashi.It is placed in one rashi and Relating to another Rashi.

> > > (Rashige Swamshe/Paparkshe Guruna Drishte etc are examples).Rashi

> is

> > > the key word.But if Varga has to be meant sage makes it clear -

> > > eg:Bhrigwonkaraka Varge.

> > >

> > > >

> > > > Nobody is disputing what BPHS says but why ignore what it means?

> > > You > have not answered as to whether accepting your premise, we

> > > treat one to > have fear from Mice and cats if AK falls in Mesha

> > > rasi or Mesha navamsha > and why the fact that BPHS mentions

> > > Meshaamshe there is to be ignored. > Do we take Santanam's

> > > translation to be incorrect?

> > >

> > > Pradeep:As you know, Karakamsha is not about AK Placed in Mesha

> > > Rashi.But about AK having Amsha in Mesha Rashi(through amsha rashi

> > > link).For the second condition,AK can be placed in any Rashi.Thus

> > > fear happens when Ak has navamsha in Aries.

> > >

> > > >

> > > > I do not understand as to why I have to take amsha mentioned

> > > > specifically to mean as rashi. Or same when the indication is

> > > clearly > about navamsha rashi and not Rashi of rasi chakra.

> > >

> > > Pradeep:What does navamsha rashi mean is the key.For that we can

> > > only rely on texts (non english translation) from scholars trained

> > > in Parampara.As BPHS says they are amsha in Rashis.How can we see

> > > transit Result from the Rashi for any identical navamsha.How do we

> > > equate them through Tulya Principle.They have an inherent link is

> > > my understanding.

> > >

> > > >

> > > > I fail to understand the concept of shadvargas to be seen in

> only

> > > rasi > and navamsha, at all, if shadvargaas are to be seen at all.

> > > Shadvargas > mean six types of Vargas and are Rasi, Hora,

> Dreshkana,

> > > Navamsha, > Dwadashaamsha and Trimshamsha. May I ask which classic

> > > says that only > Rasi and navamsha make up the 6 Vargas? I have

> not

> > > also seen any > astrological classic saying that the shadvargas

> are

> > > on lagna only, would > like you to quote any reliable source for

> > > this.

> > >

> > > Pradeep:I have never said anything as you have mentioned

> > > above.Moreover shadvargas CANNOT be seen in navamsha.They are

> > > divisions of a Rashi.Moreover i have always said shadvargas are

> > > found either for our natal Lagna or planets.Can you pls

> demonstrate

> > > if it is possible otherwise.

> > >

> > > >

> > > > I have not yet understood exactly what you mean by " Navamsha

> > > Rashi is > nothing but the Rashi on to which a particular sector

> > > within a Rashi is > relating back. " .

> > >

> > > Pradeep:Meshadi Rashige Swamshe is explaining this.Rashi Tulya is

> > > explaining this.Transit results are explainign this.Lagna

> > > shadvargake shloka is explaining this.

> > >

> > > >

> > > > I do like Tarka and Pramana to form the basis of an argument,

> but

> > > yet > have to see that especially in connection with the

> karakamsha

> > > adhayaaya > shlokas of BPHS that are being quoted, so far. same

> for

> > > assuming > Shadvarga to mean only two Vargas and not six. If there

> > > is any pramana > for that be kind to share the same.

> > >

> > > Pradeep:I have never said so.Pls show the reference.

> > >

> > > >

> > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > >

> > >

> > > Respect

> > > Pradeep

> > > >

> > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > > Dear Chandrashehar ji

> > > > >

> > > <%40>

> > > > > <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > > >

> > > > > > I fail to understand what you are driving at. If Mithuna is

> the

> > > > > > karakamsha, second from it can no doubt only be Cancer

> > > navamsha but

> > > > > it

> > > > > > does not necessarily to lie in Cancer rasi as you propose.

> As

> > > you,

> > > > > > yourself, point out Cancer navamsha occurs in more than one

> > > rasi.

> > > > >

> > > > > Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > >

> > > > > I too am failing to understand why this has to lie in Cancer

> > > Rashi.

> > > > > It will lie in Cancer Rashi only in the case of Vargottama.

> > > > > Let us take your chart.Your Moon is placed in Libra Rashi

> (Mesha

> > > > > Navamsha) while your Venus is placed in Makara Rashi(Mesha

> > > > > Navamha).But are we differentiating the Navamshas.No we just

> > > treat

> > > > > both (Moon and Venus) as in Aries Navamsha.How is it

> > > possible.Within

> > > > > a Rashi another rashi is having amsha.This amsha can root back

> > > to its

> > > > > main rashi through Varga sambandha(think how a planet is

> linking

> > > to

> > > > > the houses lorded by it ,though placed elsewhere).The key is

> > > when we

> > > > > see two planets as yuti in a navamsha -they are and can be so

> > > only if

> > > > > they are so disposed in rashi.In such cases we call them

> > > > > vargottama.In the other cases they are not yuti,but relating

> to

> > > the

> > > > > same rashi through amsha sambandha.

> > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > > One certainly can interpret sutras the way one likes and one

> > > > > certainly

> > > > > > can. The question is that does that by itself prove any

> other

> > > > > > interpretation t be wrong? I would not think so.

> > > > >

> > > > > It does not prove by itself as you have said.But logically we

> can

> > > > > prove why such intrpretations are wrong based on classical

> > > > > definitions.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > I see no reason to interpret karakamsha as Rasi holding the

> > > amsha

> > > > > > occupied by Atmakaraka, neither have I seen any logical

> > > explanation

> > > > > to

> > > > > > support that argument.

> > > > >

> > > > > 1)In BPHS it is clearly mentioned ''Meshadi RASHIGE Swamshe''

> > > > > 2)At many places Rashua,Paparkshe Guruna Drishte,etc

> > > are ,mentioned -

> > > > > but you prefer to think that it is not Rashi.

> > > > >

> > > > > Thus there is logic.

> > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > > As to intensity of result variation that is given, I presume

> > > you

> > > > > are

> > > > > > talking about an opinion of some one and hopefully not some

> > > sutra

> > > > > that

> > > > > > is so interpreted.

> > > > >

> > > > > Yes it is the view of some one ,but it is logically

> > > comprehensable

> > > > > for me.

> > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > > I am not able to understand why at one point Guru Varga can

> > > mean

> > > > > Chandra

> > > > > > placed in navamsha etc. of Guru but at other Shukra Varga

> does

> > > not

> > > > > mean

> > > > > > that.

> > > > >

> > > > > When we say shadvargas of Shukra,the Vargas are 1)Rashi in

> which

> > > > > Shukra is placed and not Libra and Taurus. 2)navamshaka rashi

> in

> > > > > which shukra has amsha etc.

> > > > >

> > > > > But when we say chandra in Guru varga we are talking about

> > > shadvargas

> > > > > of Chandra in the Rashi of Guru.

> > > > >

> > > > > Thus shadvargas are always for a planet or Lagna.

> > > > >

> > > > > > I also can not understand why " Navamsha Rashi is nothing

> but

> > > the

> > > > > Rashi

> > > > > > on to which a particular sector within a Rashi is relating

> > > back. " ,

> > > > > as

> > > > > > you so eloquently put it. I was always taught that navamsha

> is

> > > oner

> > > > > of

> > > > > > the nine parts within a rasi that is ruled by different

> grahas

> > > > > according

> > > > > > to well defined rules laid down by the sages.

> > > > >

> > > > > My answer is how can we seetransit results for any of the 9

> aries

> > > > > navamsh sectors from 1 Aries Rashi.

> > > > > How can we see Rashi Tulya etc from one Aries ,no matter where

> > > the

> > > > > sector was derived from.

> > > > >

> > > > > This points to navamsha as an amshaka in another Rashi (or

> same

> > > in

> > > > > case of Vargottama)

> > > > >

> > > > > But then I am only a

> > > > > > student of astrology who is yet to achieve the full

> knowledge

> > > of

> > > > > the

> > > > > > science.

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > If you are a student ,what am i.Debates help us to understand

> the

> > > > > underlying principles in a better fashion.I agree that both

> the

> > > > > parties should be sincere and should not argue for the sake of

> > > it.As

> > > > > you always say based on Tarka and Pramana.

> > > > >

> > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > >

> > > > > Respect

> > > > > Pradeep

> > > > > >

> > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Assume Karakamsha Rashi is Mithuna.Then second from it can

> > > only be

> > > > > > > Cancer no matter whether one is seeing this from

> > > a ''navamsha''

> > > > > > > arrangement or ''Rashi'' arrangement(In fact both are

> falling

> > > > > within

> > > > > > > the same skeleton).

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Please read Sutras 52 and 53 together

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > 1)Venus and Mars having Varge(amshas or simply Navamsha)

> in

> > > the

> > > > > 2nd

> > > > > > > from Karakamsha Rashi - Fond of others wives. Method -

> > > Identify the

> > > > > > > vargas of Venus & Mars in this chart.If they are in

> > > > > Cancer,condition

> > > > > > > satisfied.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > 2)Venus and Mars joining or aspecting the 2nd from

> Karakamsha

> > > > > Rashi-

> > > > > > > Similar Habits till end of Life.Method - Check if

> Venus/Mars

> > > is

> > > > > > > placed in Cancer or they aspect Cancer -condition

> > > > > satisfied.Aspects

> > > > > > > are always w.r to Rashi placements and not ''amsha

> > > > > > > dispositions''.Hence aspect is not mentioned in the first

> > > case.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Intensity of Result Variation (Sutra 52 & 53) - Placements

> > > and

> > > > > > > aspects are more powerful than Varga Sambandha.Eg-

> Kemadruma -

> > > > > Planets

> > > > > > > placed on either sides of Chandra navamshaka Rashi

> results in

> > > > > > > cancellation.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Guru Varga - can have meaning only with reference to

> planet

> > > or

> > > > > lagna -

> > > > > > > eg Chandra having Guru Varga - Chandra should be placed in

> > > > > > > Dhanu/Meena,Its Navamsha is in

> > > > > > > Dhanu/Meena,Drekkana/Trimshamsha/Saptamsha is in

> Dhanu/Meena

> > > etc.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > 12th is fine - Especially as Parashara and Vyaye is

> quoted.In

> > > > > Sutras

> > > > > > > 12th etc will be defined upfront.For me there is no real

> > > moving

> > > > > back

> > > > > > > or bringing back to rashi chakra.They are falling there

> > > > > itslef.12th

> > > > > > > from Karakamsha rashi is a papa rashi with saturn.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Navamsha Rashi is nothing but the Rashi on to which a

> > > particular

> > > > > > > sector within a Rashi is relating back.Analysis are always

> > > done

> > > > > w.r

> > > > > > > to a skeleton of 12 Rashis.Each diagram we draw shows the

> > > same

> > > > > > > skeleton(As 1 single human body) but different ways in

> which

> > > > > planets

> > > > > > > or our lagna are relating(subtle physiological functions

> > > again

> > > > > within

> > > > > > > 1 body).

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > As long as we treat them as seperate entities ,the point

> > > cannot be

> > > > > > > driven home.If you can think of Lagna shadvargake shloka

> with

> > > > > > > aspectual magnitudes,i feel things should be evident.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > It is clear beyond any ambiguity that ,sage will nver give

> > > any

> > > > > > > superfluos info especially in sutras.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Ofcourse i respect your views too.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > 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

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

July 10, 2007

sairaman

thank y sir fr yr response both boks are very nice

reading books are like watching a cinema where crores invested and many worked

hard we enjoy both cinema and astrology

it is realy thrilling that sometimes theexpected results comes out and not

always

most of invidiauls want parihara as instant fast foods

many do not understand karma is inevitable it shall be digested where we have no

control below throat till end it comes out we have choice to eat not the choice

that it should be assimilated in boady in the pattern we require below throat

all are automatic it shall happen

hapiness and peace is state of mind created by inviduals around us

many survived world wars so many died in civil wars

we can resist problems given by DBA by deep meditation, pranayamam less eating

less talking and no thinking dreaming neat house good habits good manners and

good thoughts will resist any bad events

but many indivduals do not change their style in life still wants instant

pariharasms and results only positive how it shall be

As y have mentioned both books is really enjoyable to read as y have rightly

said instead of searching things let us enjoy the writings of people who

researched in this field and given volume of knowledge to us

thank y sir with my regards and wishes

Bhaskar <bhaskar_jyotish wrote: