Karakamsha -Chandrashekhar ji/Dashadhyayi 800 years old

[Guest guest]

Dear Chandrashekhar ji

 

Swamsha can mean two things.Shri Sanjay Rath had asked me the same

question an year back.

 

1)Swa -Amsha - Own amsha or belonging to him - ie Mars is in Aries

amsha.

 

2)Swamsha - Similar to the vargas he has attained as in shadvarga of

a planet or lagna.(In whose Rashi he is palced,having

navamsha,drekkana etc)

 

In Karakamsha phala adhyaya - Sage is talking about swamsha as in

point 2.There is no ambiguity as sage is not only talking about AK

in his own amsha ,but results for having amsha in meshadi arashige

(Rashis from Mesha onwards).

 

Yes i agree with your point regarding recent commentators

translators.

 

Dashadhyayi was written almost 800 years back.Thus it is not

new.Moreover Dashadhyayi kara quotes giant scholars who had lived

before him.

 

Even among scholars from later period (1800/1900),Late D.V.SubbuRao

has similar views.Shri Sanjay Rath has similar views(for amshaka

alone).

 

Any local language scholar ,that i am reading uses amshas

extensively.Sanskrit to malayalam translations are crystal clear as

compared to sanskrit to english.

 

As you may know - Malayalam is a comparatively new language and is

mixture of Sanskrit and Tamil.Thus most of the sanskrit words are

not new for us.

 

Regarding complexity ,you are true.That is why i would like to trust

those who lived 800 years ago, as they had uncorrupted,knowledge

handed down through Gurukula Sampradaaya.

 

Respect

Pradeep

 

 

, Chandrashekhar

<chandrashekhar46 wrote:

>

> Dear Pradeep,

>

> What is swamsha of a graha? Barring Sun and Moon every graha lords

over

> two rasis and by extension 18 navamshas at the least.

>

> Nobody is disputing that navamsha is an amsha in another rasi and

ruled

> by some graha that need not be the one who rules the Rasi.

>

> I do not know why you think that I feel that you do not understand

Shad

> is 6. I only pointed out why Varge used with Shadavarga is not

plural,

> as you were claiming.

>

> I have no hesitation in accepting that the shlokas were written

> thousands of year earlier and am rather am proud of the depth of

> knowledge of the sages of those times. But many of the

commentaries and

> even other classics are of much more modern times. However the

antiquity

> or otherwise of an original text does not deduct from its quality.

At

> the same time one must understand that most of the ancient texts

had

> many commentaries for each of the text and that too by some

learned

> astrologers of the day. Had translation of the ancient texts and

their

> interpretation been so easy, there would not have been so many

> commentator of each of the texts. So it may be assuming too much

if we

> say that only this commentator is right and everybody else is

wrong.

>

> Take care,

> Chandrashekhar.

>

> 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

> >

> >

> > <%40>, 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>

> > > > <%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>

> > > > > > <%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>

> > > > > > > > <%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

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

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

removed]

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

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

-----

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

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.9.0/853 -

Release

> > > > Date:

> > > > > > 6/18/2007 3:02 PM

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

[Guest guest]

Dear Pradeep,

 

It is good you respect the commentators from an older era. So why doubt

Bhattotpala and Krishna Mishra?

 

Most of the languages of India are derived from Sanskrit so Hindi

translations are also not lees in translating Sanskrit texts, than

Malayalam ones. And Hindi developed in the Land of Varaha Mihira Himself

and had not mixture of Tamil in it. So using your logic, the hindi

translations may be more near accuracy in translation of Sanskrit texts.

And then Varanasi has always been accepted as the highest seat of

Sanskrit learning through out India, so the translators from there

should be highly respected, is that not right?

 

Chandrashekhar.

 

vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

>

> Dear Chandrashekhar ji

>

> Swamsha can mean two things.Shri Sanjay Rath had asked me the same

> question an year back.

>

> 1)Swa -Amsha - Own amsha or belonging to him - ie Mars is in Aries

> amsha.

>

> 2)Swamsha - Similar to the vargas he has attained as in shadvarga of

> a planet or lagna.(In whose Rashi he is palced,having

> navamsha,drekkana etc)

>

> In Karakamsha phala adhyaya - Sage is talking about swamsha as in

> point 2.There is no ambiguity as sage is not only talking about AK

> in his own amsha ,but results for having amsha in meshadi arashige

> (Rashis from Mesha onwards).

>

> Yes i agree with your point regarding recent commentators

> translators.

>

> Dashadhyayi was written almost 800 years back.Thus it is not

> new.Moreover Dashadhyayi kara quotes giant scholars who had lived

> before him.

>

> Even among scholars from later period (1800/1900),Late D.V.SubbuRao

> has similar views.Shri Sanjay Rath has similar views(for amshaka

> alone).

>

> Any local language scholar ,that i am reading uses amshas

> extensively.Sanskrit to malayalam translations are crystal clear as

> compared to sanskrit to english.

>

> As you may know - Malayalam is a comparatively new language and is

> mixture of Sanskrit and Tamil.Thus most of the sanskrit words are

> not new for us.

>

> Regarding complexity ,you are true.That is why i would like to trust

> those who lived 800 years ago, as they had uncorrupted,knowledge

> handed down through Gurukula Sampradaaya.

>

> Respect

> Pradeep

>

>

> <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> <chandrashekhar46 wrote:

> >

> > Dear Pradeep,

> >

> > What is swamsha of a graha? Barring Sun and Moon every graha lords

> over

> > two rasis and by extension 18 navamshas at the least.

> >

> > Nobody is disputing that navamsha is an amsha in another rasi and

> ruled

> > by some graha that need not be the one who rules the Rasi.

> >

> > I do not know why you think that I feel that you do not understand

> Shad

> > is 6. I only pointed out why Varge used with Shadavarga is not

> plural,

> > as you were claiming.

> >

> > I have no hesitation in accepting that the shlokas were written

> > thousands of year earlier and am rather am proud of the depth of

> > knowledge of the sages of those times. But many of the

> commentaries and

> > even other classics are of much more modern times. However the

> antiquity

> > or otherwise of an original text does not deduct from its quality.

> At

> > the same time one must understand that most of the ancient texts

> had

> > many commentaries for each of the text and that too by some

> learned

> > astrologers of the day. Had translation of the ancient texts and

> their

> > interpretation been so easy, there would not have been so many

> > commentator of each of the texts. So it may be assuming too much

> if we

> > say that only this commentator is right and everybody else is

> wrong.

> >

> > Take care,

> > Chandrashekhar.

> >

> > 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

> > >

> > >

> <%40>

> > > <%40>, 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>

> > > <%40>

> > > > > <%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>

> > > > > <%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>

> > > > > > > <%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>

> > > > > > > > > > > <%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

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

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

> removed]

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

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

> -----

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

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.9.0/853 -

> Release

> > > > > Date:

> > > > > > > 6/18/2007 3:02 PM

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

[Guest guest]

Dear Chandrashekhar ji

 

I have always respected scholars of the earlier or olden days and

considered them above contemporary astrologers.

 

Malayalam sanskrit link was mentioned,for the benefit of those(if

any) thinking sanskrit and devanagari script as alien to Kerala.

 

Astrology,Literature and Ayurveda including the Charaka and

Sushrutha Samhithas,were studied from granthas written in Devanagari

script and not malayalam.

 

Sufficient language skills and high astrological knowledge(basics)

is the order that i prefer.Dashadhyayi kara came from a lineage

which had sustained and enriched the rich heritage of Sanskrit

literature.Astrology knowledge is not to mention.

 

Bhatolpala translations/interpretations cannot match the original

Bhatolpala commentary.Thus i do not suspect Bhatolpala.

 

Respect

Pradeep

 

, Chandrashekhar

<chandrashekhar46 wrote:

>

> Dear Pradeep,

>

> It is good you respect the commentators from an older era. So why

doubt

> Bhattotpala and Krishna Mishra?

>

> Most of the languages of India are derived from Sanskrit so Hindi

> translations are also not lees in translating Sanskrit texts, than

> Malayalam ones. And Hindi developed in the Land of Varaha Mihira

Himself

> and had not mixture of Tamil in it. So using your logic, the hindi

> translations may be more near accuracy in translation of Sanskrit

texts.

> And then Varanasi has always been accepted as the highest seat of

> Sanskrit learning through out India, so the translators from

there

> should be highly respected, is that not right?

>

> Chandrashekhar.

>

> vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> >

> > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> >

> > Swamsha can mean two things.Shri Sanjay Rath had asked me the

same

> > question an year back.

> >

> > 1)Swa -Amsha - Own amsha or belonging to him - ie Mars is in

Aries

> > amsha.

> >

> > 2)Swamsha - Similar to the vargas he has attained as in

shadvarga of

> > a planet or lagna.(In whose Rashi he is palced,having

> > navamsha,drekkana etc)

> >

> > In Karakamsha phala adhyaya - Sage is talking about swamsha as in

> > point 2.There is no ambiguity as sage is not only talking about

AK

> > in his own amsha ,but results for having amsha in meshadi

arashige

> > (Rashis from Mesha onwards).

> >

> > Yes i agree with your point regarding recent commentators

> > translators.

> >

> > Dashadhyayi was written almost 800 years back.Thus it is not

> > new.Moreover Dashadhyayi kara quotes giant scholars who had lived

> > before him.

> >

> > Even among scholars from later period (1800/1900),Late

D.V.SubbuRao

> > has similar views.Shri Sanjay Rath has similar views(for amshaka

> > alone).

> >

> > Any local language scholar ,that i am reading uses amshas

> > extensively.Sanskrit to malayalam translations are crystal clear

as

> > compared to sanskrit to english.

> >

> > As you may know - Malayalam is a comparatively new language and

is

> > mixture of Sanskrit and Tamil.Thus most of the sanskrit words are

> > not new for us.

> >

> > Regarding complexity ,you are true.That is why i would like to

trust

> > those who lived 800 years ago, as they had uncorrupted,knowledge

> > handed down through Gurukula Sampradaaya.

> >

> > Respect

> > Pradeep

> >

> >

> > <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > >

> > > Dear Pradeep,

> > >

> > > What is swamsha of a graha? Barring Sun and Moon every graha

lords

> > over

> > > two rasis and by extension 18 navamshas at the least.

> > >

> > > Nobody is disputing that navamsha is an amsha in another rasi

and

> > ruled

> > > by some graha that need not be the one who rules the Rasi.

> > >

> > > I do not know why you think that I feel that you do not

understand

> > Shad

> > > is 6. I only pointed out why Varge used with Shadavarga is not

> > plural,

> > > as you were claiming.

> > >

> > > I have no hesitation in accepting that the shlokas were written

> > > thousands of year earlier and am rather am proud of the depth

of

> > > knowledge of the sages of those times. But many of the

> > commentaries and

> > > even other classics are of much more modern times. However the

> > antiquity

> > > or otherwise of an original text does not deduct from its

quality.

> > At

> > > the same time one must understand that most of the ancient

texts

> > had

> > > many commentaries for each of the text and that too by some

> > learned

> > > astrologers of the day. Had translation of the ancient texts

and

> > their

> > > interpretation been so easy, there would not have been so many

> > > commentator of each of the texts. So it may be assuming too

much

> > if we

> > > say that only this commentator is right and everybody else is

> > wrong.

> > >

> > > Take care,

> > > Chandrashekhar.

> > >

> > > 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

> > > >

> > > >

> > <%40>

> > > > <%40>, 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>

> > > > <%40>

> > > > > > <%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>

> > > > > > <%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>

> > > > > > > > <%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>

> > > > > > > > > > > > <%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

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

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

> > removed]

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

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

----

> > -----

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

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.9.0/853 -

> > Release

> > > > > > Date:

> > > > > > > > 6/18/2007 3:02 PM

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

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

removed]

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

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

----

> > -

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

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.9.6/865 -

Release

> > Date:

> > > > > > 6/24/2007 8:33 AM

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

[Guest guest]

Dear Pradeep,

 

I quoted from original Sanskrit commentary of Bhattotpala,which you did

question. I do not have his English translation as you assumed.

 

Chandrashekhar.

 

vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

>

> Dear Chandrashekhar ji

>

> I have always respected scholars of the earlier or olden days and

> considered them above contemporary astrologers.

>

> Malayalam sanskrit link was mentioned,for the benefit of those(if

> any) thinking sanskrit and devanagari script as alien to Kerala.

>

> Astrology,Literature and Ayurveda including the Charaka and

> Sushrutha Samhithas,were studied from granthas written in Devanagari

> script and not malayalam.

>

> Sufficient language skills and high astrological knowledge(basics)

> is the order that i prefer.Dashadhyayi kara came from a lineage

> which had sustained and enriched the rich heritage of Sanskrit

> literature.Astrology knowledge is not to mention.

>

> Bhatolpala translations/interpretations cannot match the original

> Bhatolpala commentary.Thus i do not suspect Bhatolpala.

>

> Respect

> Pradeep

>

>

> <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> <chandrashekhar46 wrote:

> >

> > Dear Pradeep,

> >

> > It is good you respect the commentators from an older era. So why

> doubt

> > Bhattotpala and Krishna Mishra?

> >

> > Most of the languages of India are derived from Sanskrit so Hindi

> > translations are also not lees in translating Sanskrit texts, than

> > Malayalam ones. And Hindi developed in the Land of Varaha Mihira

> Himself

> > and had not mixture of Tamil in it. So using your logic, the hindi

> > translations may be more near accuracy in translation of Sanskrit

> texts.

> > And then Varanasi has always been accepted as the highest seat of

> > Sanskrit learning through out India, so the translators from

> there

> > should be highly respected, is that not right?

> >

> > Chandrashekhar.

> >

> > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > >

> > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > >

> > > Swamsha can mean two things.Shri Sanjay Rath had asked me the

> same

> > > question an year back.

> > >

> > > 1)Swa -Amsha - Own amsha or belonging to him - ie Mars is in

> Aries

> > > amsha.

> > >

> > > 2)Swamsha - Similar to the vargas he has attained as in

> shadvarga of

> > > a planet or lagna.(In whose Rashi he is palced,having

> > > navamsha,drekkana etc)

> > >

> > > In Karakamsha phala adhyaya - Sage is talking about swamsha as in

> > > point 2.There is no ambiguity as sage is not only talking about

> AK

> > > in his own amsha ,but results for having amsha in meshadi

> arashige

> > > (Rashis from Mesha onwards).

> > >

> > > Yes i agree with your point regarding recent commentators

> > > translators.

> > >

> > > Dashadhyayi was written almost 800 years back.Thus it is not

> > > new.Moreover Dashadhyayi kara quotes giant scholars who had lived

> > > before him.

> > >

> > > Even among scholars from later period (1800/1900),Late

> D.V.SubbuRao

> > > has similar views.Shri Sanjay Rath has similar views(for amshaka

> > > alone).

> > >

> > > Any local language scholar ,that i am reading uses amshas

> > > extensively.Sanskrit to malayalam translations are crystal clear

> as

> > > compared to sanskrit to english.

> > >

> > > As you may know - Malayalam is a comparatively new language and

> is

> > > mixture of Sanskrit and Tamil.Thus most of the sanskrit words are

> > > not new for us.

> > >

> > > Regarding complexity ,you are true.That is why i would like to

> trust

> > > those who lived 800 years ago, as they had uncorrupted,knowledge

> > > handed down through Gurukula Sampradaaya.

> > >

> > > Respect

> > > Pradeep

> > >

> > >

> <%40>

> > > <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > >

> > > > What is swamsha of a graha? Barring Sun and Moon every graha

> lords

> > > over

> > > > two rasis and by extension 18 navamshas at the least.

> > > >

> > > > Nobody is disputing that navamsha is an amsha in another rasi

> and

> > > ruled

> > > > by some graha that need not be the one who rules the Rasi.

> > > >

> > > > I do not know why you think that I feel that you do not

> understand

> > > Shad

> > > > is 6. I only pointed out why Varge used with Shadavarga is not

> > > plural,

> > > > as you were claiming.

> > > >

> > > > I have no hesitation in accepting that the shlokas were written

> > > > thousands of year earlier and am rather am proud of the depth

> of

> > > > knowledge of the sages of those times. But many of the

> > > commentaries and

> > > > even other classics are of much more modern times. However the

> > > antiquity

> > > > or otherwise of an original text does not deduct from its

> quality.

> > > At

> > > > the same time one must understand that most of the ancient

> texts

> > > had

> > > > many commentaries for each of the text and that too by some

> > > learned

> > > > astrologers of the day. Had translation of the ancient texts

> and

> > > their

> > > > interpretation been so easy, there would not have been so many

> > > > commentator of each of the texts. So it may be assuming too

> much

> > > if we

> > > > say that only this commentator is right and everybody else is

> > > wrong.

> > > >

> > > > Take care,

> > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > >

> > > > 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

> > > > >

> > > > >

> <%40>

> > > <%40>

> > > > > <%40>, 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>

> > > <%40>

> > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > <%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>

> > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > <%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>

> > > > > > > <%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>

> > > > > > > > > > > <%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

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > >

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

> > > removed]

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

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

> ----

> > > -----

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

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.9.0/853 -

> > > Release

> > > > > > > Date:

> > > > > > > > > 6/18/2007 3:02 PM

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

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

> removed]

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

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

> ----

> > > -

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

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.9.6/865 -

> Release

> > > Date:

> > > > > > > 6/24/2007 8:33 AM

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

[Guest guest]

Dear Chandrashekhar ji

 

It would be great,if you could quote those sanskrit shlokas and also

the hindi ones(sitaram jha).

 

We could see how these ones are fitting astrologically and

linguistically with the original shloka.Hope other scholars will also

comment.

 

Respect

Pradeep

 

, Chandrashekhar

<chandrashekhar46 wrote:

>

> Dear Pradeep,

>

> I quoted from original Sanskrit commentary of Bhattotpala,which you

did

> question. I do not have his English translation as you assumed.

>

> Chandrashekhar.

>

> vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> >

> > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> >

> > I have always respected scholars of the earlier or olden days and

> > considered them above contemporary astrologers.

> >

> > Malayalam sanskrit link was mentioned,for the benefit of those(if

> > any) thinking sanskrit and devanagari script as alien to Kerala.

> >

> > Astrology,Literature and Ayurveda including the Charaka and

> > Sushrutha Samhithas,were studied from granthas written in

Devanagari

> > script and not malayalam.

> >

> > Sufficient language skills and high astrological knowledge(basics)

> > is the order that i prefer.Dashadhyayi kara came from a lineage

> > which had sustained and enriched the rich heritage of Sanskrit

> > literature.Astrology knowledge is not to mention.

> >

> > Bhatolpala translations/interpretations cannot match the original

> > Bhatolpala commentary.Thus i do not suspect Bhatolpala.

> >

> > Respect

> > Pradeep

> >

> >

> > <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > >

> > > Dear Pradeep,

> > >

> > > It is good you respect the commentators from an older era. So

why

> > doubt

> > > Bhattotpala and Krishna Mishra?

> > >

> > > Most of the languages of India are derived from Sanskrit so

Hindi

> > > translations are also not lees in translating Sanskrit texts,

than

> > > Malayalam ones. And Hindi developed in the Land of Varaha Mihira

> > Himself

> > > and had not mixture of Tamil in it. So using your logic, the

hindi

> > > translations may be more near accuracy in translation of

Sanskrit

> > texts.

> > > And then Varanasi has always been accepted as the highest seat

of

> > > Sanskrit learning through out India, so the translators from

> > there

> > > should be highly respected, is that not right?

> > >

> > > Chandrashekhar.

> > >

> > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > >

> > > > Swamsha can mean two things.Shri Sanjay Rath had asked me the

> > same

> > > > question an year back.

> > > >

> > > > 1)Swa -Amsha - Own amsha or belonging to him - ie Mars is in

> > Aries

> > > > amsha.

> > > >

> > > > 2)Swamsha - Similar to the vargas he has attained as in

> > shadvarga of

> > > > a planet or lagna.(In whose Rashi he is palced,having

> > > > navamsha,drekkana etc)

> > > >

> > > > In Karakamsha phala adhyaya - Sage is talking about swamsha

as in

> > > > point 2.There is no ambiguity as sage is not only talking

about

> > AK

> > > > in his own amsha ,but results for having amsha in meshadi

> > arashige

> > > > (Rashis from Mesha onwards).

> > > >

> > > > Yes i agree with your point regarding recent commentators

> > > > translators.

> > > >

> > > > Dashadhyayi was written almost 800 years back.Thus it is not

> > > > new.Moreover Dashadhyayi kara quotes giant scholars who had

lived

> > > > before him.

> > > >

> > > > Even among scholars from later period (1800/1900),Late

> > D.V.SubbuRao

> > > > has similar views.Shri Sanjay Rath has similar views(for

amshaka

> > > > alone).

> > > >

> > > > Any local language scholar ,that i am reading uses amshas

> > > > extensively.Sanskrit to malayalam translations are crystal

clear

> > as

> > > > compared to sanskrit to english.

> > > >

> > > > As you may know - Malayalam is a comparatively new language

and

> > is

> > > > mixture of Sanskrit and Tamil.Thus most of the sanskrit words

are

> > > > not new for us.

> > > >

> > > > Regarding complexity ,you are true.That is why i would like to

> > trust

> > > > those who lived 800 years ago, as they had

uncorrupted,knowledge

> > > > handed down through Gurukula Sampradaaya.

> > > >

> > > > Respect

> > > > Pradeep

> > > >

> > > >

> > <%40>

> > > > <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > >

> > > > > What is swamsha of a graha? Barring Sun and Moon every graha

> > lords

> > > > over

> > > > > two rasis and by extension 18 navamshas at the least.

> > > > >

> > > > > Nobody is disputing that navamsha is an amsha in another

rasi

> > and

> > > > ruled

> > > > > by some graha that need not be the one who rules the Rasi.

> > > > >

> > > > > I do not know why you think that I feel that you do not

> > understand

> > > > Shad

> > > > > is 6. I only pointed out why Varge used with Shadavarga is

not

> > > > plural,

> > > > > as you were claiming.

> > > > >

> > > > > I have no hesitation in accepting that the shlokas were

written

> > > > > thousands of year earlier and am rather am proud of the

depth

> > of

> > > > > knowledge of the sages of those times. But many of the

> > > > commentaries and

> > > > > even other classics are of much more modern times. However

the

> > > > antiquity

> > > > > or otherwise of an original text does not deduct from its

> > quality.

> > > > At

> > > > > the same time one must understand that most of the ancient

> > texts

> > > > had

> > > > > many commentaries for each of the text and that too by some

> > > > learned

> > > > > astrologers of the day. Had translation of the ancient texts

> > and

> > > > their

> > > > > interpretation been so easy, there would not have been so

many

> > > > > commentator of each of the texts. So it may be assuming too

> > much

> > > > if we

> > > > > say that only this commentator is right and everybody else

is

> > > > wrong.

> > > > >

> > > > > Take care,

> > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > >

> > > > > 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

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > <%40>

> > > > <%40>

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

> > > > <%40>

> > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > <%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>

> > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > <%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>

> > > > > > > > <%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>

> > > > > > > > > > > > <%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

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

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

---

> > ----

> > > > -----

> > > > > > ---

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

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

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No virus found in this incoming

message.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

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

> > > > removed]

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > >

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

---

> > ----

> > > > -----

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

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database:

269.9.0/853 -

> > > > Release

> > > > > > > > Date:

> > > > > > > > > > 6/18/2007 3:02 PM

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

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

> > removed]

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

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

---

> > ----

> > > > -

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

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.9.6/865 -

> > Release

> > > > Date:

> > > > > > > > 6/24/2007 8:33 AM

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

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

removed]

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

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

---

> > -

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

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.9.14/882 -

Release

> > > > Date:

> > > > > > 6/30/2007 3:10 PM

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

[Guest guest]

Dear Pradeep,

 

I doubt they would serve any purpose as already the assumption that they

will not fit in any astrological and linguistic relevance to the

original shloka is hinted at. I do not know why that should be so, but

that to me is apparent. As Bhattotpala has analyzed every word in the

shlokas in depth, every interpretation that he has done of a shloka runs

to one to one quarter of a page at the very least, unlike the short

translations that you have given from Dashaadhyaayi.

 

With your mind apparently made up that it can not fit astrologically and

linguistically with the original shlokas I do not think typing that in

Sanskrit fonts is worth the effort. It appears that you do not accept

the authority of Prashna Marga, that you quote in support of

authenticity of Dashaadhyaayi, when it praises the commentary by

Bhattotpala. The reason for this is difficult to understand.

 

Chandrashekhar.

 

vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

>

> Dear Chandrashekhar ji

>

> It would be great,if you could quote those sanskrit shlokas and also

> the hindi ones(sitaram jha).

>

> We could see how these ones are fitting astrologically and

> linguistically with the original shloka.Hope other scholars will also

> comment.

>

> Respect

> Pradeep

>

>

> <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> <chandrashekhar46 wrote:

> >

> > Dear Pradeep,

> >

> > I quoted from original Sanskrit commentary of Bhattotpala,which you

> did

> > question. I do not have his English translation as you assumed.

> >

> > Chandrashekhar.

> >

> > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > >

> > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > >

> > > I have always respected scholars of the earlier or olden days and

> > > considered them above contemporary astrologers.

> > >

> > > Malayalam sanskrit link was mentioned,for the benefit of those(if

> > > any) thinking sanskrit and devanagari script as alien to Kerala.

> > >

> > > Astrology,Literature and Ayurveda including the Charaka and

> > > Sushrutha Samhithas,were studied from granthas written in

> Devanagari

> > > script and not malayalam.

> > >

> > > Sufficient language skills and high astrological knowledge(basics)

> > > is the order that i prefer.Dashadhyayi kara came from a lineage

> > > which had sustained and enriched the rich heritage of Sanskrit

> > > literature.Astrology knowledge is not to mention.

> > >

> > > Bhatolpala translations/interpretations cannot match the original

> > > Bhatolpala commentary.Thus i do not suspect Bhatolpala.

> > >

> > > Respect

> > > Pradeep

> > >

> > >

> <%40>

> > > <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > >

> > > > It is good you respect the commentators from an older era. So

> why

> > > doubt

> > > > Bhattotpala and Krishna Mishra?

> > > >

> > > > Most of the languages of India are derived from Sanskrit so

> Hindi

> > > > translations are also not lees in translating Sanskrit texts,

> than

> > > > Malayalam ones. And Hindi developed in the Land of Varaha Mihira

> > > Himself

> > > > and had not mixture of Tamil in it. So using your logic, the

> hindi

> > > > translations may be more near accuracy in translation of

> Sanskrit

> > > texts.

> > > > And then Varanasi has always been accepted as the highest seat

> of

> > > > Sanskrit learning through out India, so the translators from

> > > there

> > > > should be highly respected, is that not right?

> > > >

> > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > >

> > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > >

> > > > > Swamsha can mean two things.Shri Sanjay Rath had asked me the

> > > same

> > > > > question an year back.

> > > > >

> > > > > 1)Swa -Amsha - Own amsha or belonging to him - ie Mars is in

> > > Aries

> > > > > amsha.

> > > > >

> > > > > 2)Swamsha - Similar to the vargas he has attained as in

> > > shadvarga of

> > > > > a planet or lagna.(In whose Rashi he is palced,having

> > > > > navamsha,drekkana etc)

> > > > >

> > > > > In Karakamsha phala adhyaya - Sage is talking about swamsha

> as in

> > > > > point 2.There is no ambiguity as sage is not only talking

> about

> > > AK

> > > > > in his own amsha ,but results for having amsha in meshadi

> > > arashige

> > > > > (Rashis from Mesha onwards).

> > > > >

> > > > > Yes i agree with your point regarding recent commentators

> > > > > translators.

> > > > >

> > > > > Dashadhyayi was written almost 800 years back.Thus it is not

> > > > > new.Moreover Dashadhyayi kara quotes giant scholars who had

> lived

> > > > > before him.

> > > > >

> > > > > Even among scholars from later period (1800/1900),Late

> > > D.V.SubbuRao

> > > > > has similar views.Shri Sanjay Rath has similar views(for

> amshaka

> > > > > alone).

> > > > >

> > > > > Any local language scholar ,that i am reading uses amshas

> > > > > extensively.Sanskrit to malayalam translations are crystal

> clear

> > > as

> > > > > compared to sanskrit to english.

> > > > >

> > > > > As you may know - Malayalam is a comparatively new language

> and

> > > is

> > > > > mixture of Sanskrit and Tamil.Thus most of the sanskrit words

> are

> > > > > not new for us.

> > > > >

> > > > > Regarding complexity ,you are true.That is why i would like to

> > > trust

> > > > > those who lived 800 years ago, as they had

> uncorrupted,knowledge

> > > > > handed down through Gurukula Sampradaaya.

> > > > >

> > > > > Respect

> > > > > Pradeep

> > > > >

> > > > >

> <%40>

> > > <%40>

> > > > > <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > > >

> > > > > > What is swamsha of a graha? Barring Sun and Moon every graha

> > > lords

> > > > > over

> > > > > > two rasis and by extension 18 navamshas at the least.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Nobody is disputing that navamsha is an amsha in another

> rasi

> > > and

> > > > > ruled

> > > > > > by some graha that need not be the one who rules the Rasi.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > I do not know why you think that I feel that you do not

> > > understand

> > > > > Shad

> > > > > > is 6. I only pointed out why Varge used with Shadavarga is

> not

> > > > > plural,

> > > > > > as you were claiming.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > I have no hesitation in accepting that the shlokas were

> written

> > > > > > thousands of year earlier and am rather am proud of the

> depth

> > > of

> > > > > > knowledge of the sages of those times. But many of the

> > > > > commentaries and

> > > > > > even other classics are of much more modern times. However

> the

> > > > > antiquity

> > > > > > or otherwise of an original text does not deduct from its

> > > quality.

> > > > > At

> > > > > > the same time one must understand that most of the ancient

> > > texts

> > > > > had

> > > > > > many commentaries for each of the text and that too by some

> > > > > learned

> > > > > > astrologers of the day. Had translation of the ancient texts

> > > and

> > > > > their

> > > > > > interpretation been so easy, there would not have been so

> many

> > > > > > commentator of each of the texts. So it may be assuming too

> > > much

> > > > > if we

> > > > > > say that only this commentator is right and everybody else

> is

> > > > > wrong.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Take care,

> > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > 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

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> <%40>

> > > <%40>

> > > > > <%40>

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

> > > <%40>

> > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > <%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>

> > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > <%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>

> > > > > > > <%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>

> > > > > > > > > > > <%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

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

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

> ---

> > > ----

> > > > > -----

> > > > > > > ---

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

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

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No virus found in this incoming

> message.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

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

> > > > > removed]

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

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

> ---

> > > ----

> > > > > -----

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

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database:

> 269.9.0/853 -

> > > > > Release

> > > > > > > > > Date:

> > > > > > > > > > > 6/18/2007 3:02 PM

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > >

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

> > > removed]

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

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

> ---

> > > ----

> > > > > -

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

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.9.6/865 -

> > > Release

> > > > > Date:

> > > > > > > > > 6/24/2007 8:33 AM

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

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

> removed]

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

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

> ---

> > > -

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

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.9.14/882 -

> Release

> > > > > Date:

> > > > > > > 6/30/2007 3:10 PM

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

[Guest guest]

Dear Chandrashekhar ji

 

As i have mentioned earlier,i have a strong conviction that

Bhattotpala is not wrong.

 

I just wanted to cross check whether Bhattotpala is speaking about

any Trimshamsha chakras.No is what my mind says,but just wanted to

cross check.

 

Now considering your current reply,i shall prepare the paper as

suggested by some members,and your kind self may review.

 

It is not any short translation as you assume.I am only quoting the

relevant parts.If it was not in detail,how would dashadhyayi serve as

a boat to cross the vast ocean of astrological knowledge.How will it

make it crystal clear on what is what,to even a student like me.

 

I thank you for all your valuable time and knowledge shared.I will

present my view,in an orgainized fashion in front of the astrological

community for their review.

I seek your blessings for success provided my view is correct.

 

Respect

Pradeep

 

, Chandrashekhar

<chandrashekhar46 wrote:

>

> Dear Pradeep,

>

> I doubt they would serve any purpose as already the assumption that

they

> will not fit in any astrological and linguistic relevance to the

> original shloka is hinted at. I do not know why that should be so,

but

> that to me is apparent. As Bhattotpala has analyzed every word in

the

> shlokas in depth, every interpretation that he has done of a shloka

runs

> to one to one quarter of a page at the very least, unlike the short

> translations that you have given from Dashaadhyaayi.

>

> With your mind apparently made up that it can not fit

astrologically and

> linguistically with the original shlokas I do not think typing that

in

> Sanskrit fonts is worth the effort. It appears that you do not

accept

> the authority of Prashna Marga, that you quote in support of

> authenticity of Dashaadhyaayi, when it praises the commentary by

> Bhattotpala. The reason for this is difficult to understand.

>

> Chandrashekhar.

>

> vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> >

> > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> >

> > It would be great,if you could quote those sanskrit shlokas and

also

> > the hindi ones(sitaram jha).

> >

> > We could see how these ones are fitting astrologically and

> > linguistically with the original shloka.Hope other scholars will

also

> > comment.

> >

> > Respect

> > Pradeep

> >

> >

> > <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > >

> > > Dear Pradeep,

> > >

> > > I quoted from original Sanskrit commentary of Bhattotpala,which

you

> > did

> > > question. I do not have his English translation as you assumed.

> > >

> > > Chandrashekhar.

> > >

> > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > >

> > > > I have always respected scholars of the earlier or olden days

and

> > > > considered them above contemporary astrologers.

> > > >

> > > > Malayalam sanskrit link was mentioned,for the benefit of those

(if

> > > > any) thinking sanskrit and devanagari script as alien to

Kerala.

> > > >

> > > > Astrology,Literature and Ayurveda including the Charaka and

> > > > Sushrutha Samhithas,were studied from granthas written in

> > Devanagari

> > > > script and not malayalam.

> > > >

> > > > Sufficient language skills and high astrological knowledge

(basics)

> > > > is the order that i prefer.Dashadhyayi kara came from a

lineage

> > > > which had sustained and enriched the rich heritage of Sanskrit

> > > > literature.Astrology knowledge is not to mention.

> > > >

> > > > Bhatolpala translations/interpretations cannot match the

original

> > > > Bhatolpala commentary.Thus i do not suspect Bhatolpala.

> > > >

> > > > Respect

> > > > Pradeep

> > > >

> > > >

> > <%40>

> > > > <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > >

> > > > > It is good you respect the commentators from an older era.

So

> > why

> > > > doubt

> > > > > Bhattotpala and Krishna Mishra?

> > > > >

> > > > > Most of the languages of India are derived from Sanskrit so

> > Hindi

> > > > > translations are also not lees in translating Sanskrit

texts,

> > than

> > > > > Malayalam ones. And Hindi developed in the Land of Varaha

Mihira

> > > > Himself

> > > > > and had not mixture of Tamil in it. So using your logic, the

> > hindi

> > > > > translations may be more near accuracy in translation of

> > Sanskrit

> > > > texts.

> > > > > And then Varanasi has always been accepted as the highest

seat

> > of

> > > > > Sanskrit learning through out India, so the translators from

> > > > there

> > > > > should be highly respected, is that not right?

> > > > >

> > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > >

> > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Swamsha can mean two things.Shri Sanjay Rath had asked me

the

> > > > same

> > > > > > question an year back.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > 1)Swa -Amsha - Own amsha or belonging to him - ie Mars is

in

> > > > Aries

> > > > > > amsha.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > 2)Swamsha - Similar to the vargas he has attained as in

> > > > shadvarga of

> > > > > > a planet or lagna.(In whose Rashi he is palced,having

> > > > > > navamsha,drekkana etc)

> > > > > >

> > > > > > In Karakamsha phala adhyaya - Sage is talking about

swamsha

> > as in

> > > > > > point 2.There is no ambiguity as sage is not only talking

> > about

> > > > AK

> > > > > > in his own amsha ,but results for having amsha in meshadi

> > > > arashige

> > > > > > (Rashis from Mesha onwards).

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Yes i agree with your point regarding recent commentators

> > > > > > translators.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Dashadhyayi was written almost 800 years back.Thus it is

not

> > > > > > new.Moreover Dashadhyayi kara quotes giant scholars who

had

> > lived

> > > > > > before him.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Even among scholars from later period (1800/1900),Late

> > > > D.V.SubbuRao

> > > > > > has similar views.Shri Sanjay Rath has similar views(for

> > amshaka

> > > > > > alone).

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Any local language scholar ,that i am reading uses amshas

> > > > > > extensively.Sanskrit to malayalam translations are crystal

> > clear

> > > > as

> > > > > > compared to sanskrit to english.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > As you may know - Malayalam is a comparatively new

language

> > and

> > > > is

> > > > > > mixture of Sanskrit and Tamil.Thus most of the sanskrit

words

> > are

> > > > > > not new for us.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Regarding complexity ,you are true.That is why i would

like to

> > > > trust

> > > > > > those who lived 800 years ago, as they had

> > uncorrupted,knowledge

> > > > > > handed down through Gurukula Sampradaaya.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Respect

> > > > > > Pradeep

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > <%40>

> > > > <%40>

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

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

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > What is swamsha of a graha? Barring Sun and Moon every

graha

> > > > lords

> > > > > > over

> > > > > > > two rasis and by extension 18 navamshas at the least.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Nobody is disputing that navamsha is an amsha in another

> > rasi

> > > > and

> > > > > > ruled

> > > > > > > by some graha that need not be the one who rules the

Rasi.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > I do not know why you think that I feel that you do not

> > > > understand

> > > > > > Shad

> > > > > > > is 6. I only pointed out why Varge used with Shadavarga

is

> > not

> > > > > > plural,

> > > > > > > as you were claiming.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > I have no hesitation in accepting that the shlokas were

> > written

> > > > > > > thousands of year earlier and am rather am proud of the

> > depth

> > > > of

> > > > > > > knowledge of the sages of those times. But many of the

> > > > > > commentaries and

> > > > > > > even other classics are of much more modern times.

However

> > the

> > > > > > antiquity

> > > > > > > or otherwise of an original text does not deduct from

its

> > > > quality.

> > > > > > At

> > > > > > > the same time one must understand that most of the

ancient

> > > > texts

> > > > > > had

> > > > > > > many commentaries for each of the text and that too by

some

> > > > > > learned

> > > > > > > astrologers of the day. Had translation of the ancient

texts

> > > > and

> > > > > > their

> > > > > > > interpretation been so easy, there would not have been

so

> > many

> > > > > > > commentator of each of the texts. So it may be assuming

too

> > > > much

> > > > > > if we

> > > > > > > say that only this commentator is right and everybody

else

> > is

> > > > > > wrong.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Take care,

> > > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > 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

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > <%40>

> > > > <%40>

> > > > > > <%40>

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

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>

> > > > <%40>

> > > > > > <%40>

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

> > > > > > > > > > <%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>

> > > > > > <%40>

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

> > > > > > > > > > <%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>

> > > > > > > > <%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>

> > > > > > > > > > > > <%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

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

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

----

> > ---

> > > > ----

> > > > > > -----

> > > > > > > > ---

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

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

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No virus found in this incoming

> > message.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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]

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

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

----

> > ---

> > > > ----

> > > > > > -----

> > > > > > > > ---

> > > > > > > > > > -

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

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No virus found in this incoming

message.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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:

> > 269.9.0/853 -

> > > > > > Release

> > > > > > > > > > Date:

> > > > > > > > > > > > 6/18/2007 3:02 PM

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

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

> > > > removed]

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > >

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

----

> > ---

> > > > ----

> > > > > > -

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

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database:

269.9.6/865 -

> > > > Release

> > > > > > Date:

> > > > > > > > > > 6/24/2007 8:33 AM

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

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

> > removed]

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

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

----

> > ---

> > > > -

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

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.9.14/882 -

> > Release

> > > > > > Date:

> > > > > > > > 6/30/2007 3:10 PM

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

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

removed]

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

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

----

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

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

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

Release

> > > > Date:

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

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

[Guest guest]

Dear Pradeep,

 

I think you did not understand me well when I said the Bhattotpala's

commentary is expansive. If you want I would give a very short example

below about how he begins with a shloka.

Shloka 3: " Horetyahoraatravikalpameke..... "

 

Bhattotpala begins with " Horeti| horaarthaM shaastraM horaa

taamahoraatravikalpameke vaMChati| ahasch raatrishcaahoraatro

horaashabdenocyate|....... " for about one page, quoting from Vyasa etc.

to justify his interpretation of each word. I did not find that in the

shlokas you gave from Dashaadhyaayi. By the way it is not Dashaadhyaayi

that is to serve as a boat to cross the vast ocean of astrological

knowledge, that is the shloka no. 2 from Brihat Jataka. Either there is

a misquote or you assumed it to be from Dashaadhyaayi. I would not think

the learned commentator will pass of Varaha Mihira's shloka as his own.

 

Chandrashekhar.

 

vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

>

> Dear Chandrashekhar ji

>

> As i have mentioned earlier,i have a strong conviction that

> Bhattotpala is not wrong.

>

> I just wanted to cross check whether Bhattotpala is speaking about

> any Trimshamsha chakras.No is what my mind says,but just wanted to

> cross check.

>

> Now considering your current reply,i shall prepare the paper as

> suggested by some members,and your kind self may review.

>

> It is not any short translation as you assume.I am only quoting the

> relevant parts.If it was not in detail,how would dashadhyayi serve as

> a boat to cross the vast ocean of astrological knowledge.How will it

> make it crystal clear on what is what,to even a student like me.

>

> I thank you for all your valuable time and knowledge shared.I will

> present my view,in an orgainized fashion in front of the astrological

> community for their review.

> I seek your blessings for success provided my view is correct.

>

> Respect

> Pradeep

>

>

> <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> <chandrashekhar46 wrote:

> >

> > Dear Pradeep,

> >

> > I doubt they would serve any purpose as already the assumption that

> they

> > will not fit in any astrological and linguistic relevance to the

> > original shloka is hinted at. I do not know why that should be so,

> but

> > that to me is apparent. As Bhattotpala has analyzed every word in

> the

> > shlokas in depth, every interpretation that he has done of a shloka

> runs

> > to one to one quarter of a page at the very least, unlike the short

> > translations that you have given from Dashaadhyaayi.

> >

> > With your mind apparently made up that it can not fit

> astrologically and

> > linguistically with the original shlokas I do not think typing that

> in

> > Sanskrit fonts is worth the effort. It appears that you do not

> accept

> > the authority of Prashna Marga, that you quote in support of

> > authenticity of Dashaadhyaayi, when it praises the commentary by

> > Bhattotpala. The reason for this is difficult to understand.

> >

> > Chandrashekhar.

> >

> > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > >

> > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > >

> > > It would be great,if you could quote those sanskrit shlokas and

> also

> > > the hindi ones(sitaram jha).

> > >

> > > We could see how these ones are fitting astrologically and

> > > linguistically with the original shloka.Hope other scholars will

> also

> > > comment.

> > >

> > > Respect

> > > Pradeep

> > >

> > >

> <%40>

> > > <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > >

> > > > I quoted from original Sanskrit commentary of Bhattotpala,which

> you

> > > did

> > > > question. I do not have his English translation as you assumed.

> > > >

> > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > >

> > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > >

> > > > > I have always respected scholars of the earlier or olden days

> and

> > > > > considered them above contemporary astrologers.

> > > > >

> > > > > Malayalam sanskrit link was mentioned,for the benefit of those

> (if

> > > > > any) thinking sanskrit and devanagari script as alien to

> Kerala.

> > > > >

> > > > > Astrology,Literature and Ayurveda including the Charaka and

> > > > > Sushrutha Samhithas,were studied from granthas written in

> > > Devanagari

> > > > > script and not malayalam.

> > > > >

> > > > > Sufficient language skills and high astrological knowledge

> (basics)

> > > > > is the order that i prefer.Dashadhyayi kara came from a

> lineage

> > > > > which had sustained and enriched the rich heritage of Sanskrit

> > > > > literature.Astrology knowledge is not to mention.

> > > > >

> > > > > Bhatolpala translations/interpretations cannot match the

> original

> > > > > Bhatolpala commentary.Thus i do not suspect Bhatolpala.

> > > > >

> > > > > Respect

> > > > > Pradeep

> > > > >

> > > > >

> <%40>

> > > <%40>

> > > > > <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > > >

> > > > > > It is good you respect the commentators from an older era.

> So

> > > why

> > > > > doubt

> > > > > > Bhattotpala and Krishna Mishra?

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Most of the languages of India are derived from Sanskrit so

> > > Hindi

> > > > > > translations are also not lees in translating Sanskrit

> texts,

> > > than

> > > > > > Malayalam ones. And Hindi developed in the Land of Varaha

> Mihira

> > > > > Himself

> > > > > > and had not mixture of Tamil in it. So using your logic, the

> > > hindi

> > > > > > translations may be more near accuracy in translation of

> > > Sanskrit

> > > > > texts.

> > > > > > And then Varanasi has always been accepted as the highest

> seat

> > > of

> > > > > > Sanskrit learning through out India, so the translators from

> > > > > there

> > > > > > should be highly respected, is that not right?

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Swamsha can mean two things.Shri Sanjay Rath had asked me

> the

> > > > > same

> > > > > > > question an year back.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > 1)Swa -Amsha - Own amsha or belonging to him - ie Mars is

> in

> > > > > Aries

> > > > > > > amsha.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > 2)Swamsha - Similar to the vargas he has attained as in

> > > > > shadvarga of

> > > > > > > a planet or lagna.(In whose Rashi he is palced,having

> > > > > > > navamsha,drekkana etc)

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > In Karakamsha phala adhyaya - Sage is talking about

> swamsha

> > > as in

> > > > > > > point 2.There is no ambiguity as sage is not only talking

> > > about

> > > > > AK

> > > > > > > in his own amsha ,but results for having amsha in meshadi

> > > > > arashige

> > > > > > > (Rashis from Mesha onwards).

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Yes i agree with your point regarding recent commentators

> > > > > > > translators.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Dashadhyayi was written almost 800 years back.Thus it is

> not

> > > > > > > new.Moreover Dashadhyayi kara quotes giant scholars who

> had

> > > lived

> > > > > > > before him.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Even among scholars from later period (1800/1900),Late

> > > > > D.V.SubbuRao

> > > > > > > has similar views.Shri Sanjay Rath has similar views(for

> > > amshaka

> > > > > > > alone).

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Any local language scholar ,that i am reading uses amshas

> > > > > > > extensively.Sanskrit to malayalam translations are crystal

> > > clear

> > > > > as

> > > > > > > compared to sanskrit to english.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > As you may know - Malayalam is a comparatively new

> language

> > > and

> > > > > is

> > > > > > > mixture of Sanskrit and Tamil.Thus most of the sanskrit

> words

> > > are

> > > > > > > not new for us.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Regarding complexity ,you are true.That is why i would

> like to

> > > > > trust

> > > > > > > those who lived 800 years ago, as they had

> > > uncorrupted,knowledge

> > > > > > > handed down through Gurukula Sampradaaya.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Respect

> > > > > > > Pradeep

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> <%40>

> > > <%40>

> > > > > <%40>

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

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

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > What is swamsha of a graha? Barring Sun and Moon every

> graha

> > > > > lords

> > > > > > > over

> > > > > > > > two rasis and by extension 18 navamshas at the least.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Nobody is disputing that navamsha is an amsha in another

> > > rasi

> > > > > and

> > > > > > > ruled

> > > > > > > > by some graha that need not be the one who rules the

> Rasi.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > I do not know why you think that I feel that you do not

> > > > > understand

> > > > > > > Shad

> > > > > > > > is 6. I only pointed out why Varge used with Shadavarga

> is

> > > not

> > > > > > > plural,

> > > > > > > > as you were claiming.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > I have no hesitation in accepting that the shlokas were

> > > written

> > > > > > > > thousands of year earlier and am rather am proud of the

> > > depth

> > > > > of

> > > > > > > > knowledge of the sages of those times. But many of the

> > > > > > > commentaries and

> > > > > > > > even other classics are of much more modern times.

> However

> > > the

> > > > > > > antiquity

> > > > > > > > or otherwise of an original text does not deduct from

> its

> > > > > quality.

> > > > > > > At

> > > > > > > > the same time one must understand that most of the

> ancient

> > > > > texts

> > > > > > > had

> > > > > > > > many commentaries for each of the text and that too by

> some

> > > > > > > learned

> > > > > > > > astrologers of the day. Had translation of the ancient

> texts

> > > > > and

> > > > > > > their

> > > > > > > > interpretation been so easy, there would not have been

> so

> > > many

> > > > > > > > commentator of each of the texts. So it may be assuming

> too

> > > > > much

> > > > > > > if we

> > > > > > > > say that only this commentator is right and everybody

> else

> > > is

> > > > > > > wrong.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Take care,

> > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > 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

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> <%40>

> > > <%40>

> > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > <%40>

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

> 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>

> > > <%40>

> > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > <%40>

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

> > > > > > > > > > > <%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>

> > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > <%40>

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

> > > > > > > > > > > <%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>

> > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > <%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>

> > > > > > > > > > > <%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

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

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

> ----

> > > ---

> > > > > ----

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

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

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

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

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No virus found in this incoming

> > > message.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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]

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

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

> ----

> > > ---

> > > > > ----

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

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

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

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

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No virus found in this incoming

> message.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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:

> > > 269.9.0/853 -

> > > > > > > Release

> > > > > > > > > > > Date:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > 6/18/2007 3:02 PM

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

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

> > > > > removed]

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

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

> ----

> > > ---

> > > > > ----

> > > > > > > -

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

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database:

> 269.9.6/865 -

> > > > > Release

> > > > > > > Date:

> > > > > > > > > > > 6/24/2007 8:33 AM

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > >

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

> > > removed]

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

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

> ----

> > > ---

> > > > > -

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

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.9.14/882 -

> > > Release

> > > > > > > Date:

> > > > > > > > > 6/30/2007 3:10 PM

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

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

> removed]

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

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

> ----

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

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

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

> Release

> > > > > Date:

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

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

[Guest guest]

Dear Chandrashekhar ji

 

Can you point to a single mail where you have quoted Bhatotpala in

full.Doest it mean bhatotpala is not expansive or you were

selective.I dont think so.Similarly Dashadhyayi kara too explains

each and every word and some times even the purpose of a

letter.Dr.Raman too had mentioned this.The explanations spans pages

and you will then know how difficult it is for me to write all those

over here.Apart from his opinion views of various scholars are

mentioned too.

 

Bbhatotpala is a great scholar and he will never mistranslate.As i

have mentioned earlier,it is the limitations of contemproary scholars

that is leading to chaos.

 

Now it was view of Prashnamarga on Dashadhyayi - pl find the shloka

 

Adrishtwa yo dashadhyayeem

phalamdeshtumichathi

Ichathyeva Samudrasya

Tharanam sa Plavam Vina

 

Do you think Dr.Raman has misquoted.I have always found that you used

to study facts before pressing the send button.I am sad to say that

over the last few days,i see a difference.

 

Respect

Pradeep

, Chandrashekhar

<chandrashekhar46 wrote:

>

> Dear Pradeep,

>

> I think you did not understand me well when I said the

Bhattotpala's

> commentary is expansive. If you want I would give a very short

example

> below about how he begins with a shloka.

> Shloka 3: " Horetyahoraatravikalpameke..... "

>

> Bhattotpala begins with " Horeti| horaarthaM shaastraM horaa

> taamahoraatravikalpameke vaMChati| ahasch raatrishcaahoraatro

> horaashabdenocyate|....... " for about one page, quoting from Vyasa

etc.

> to justify his interpretation of each word. I did not find that in

the

> shlokas you gave from Dashaadhyaayi. By the way it is not

Dashaadhyaayi

> that is to serve as a boat to cross the vast ocean of astrological

> knowledge, that is the shloka no. 2 from Brihat Jataka. Either

there is

> a misquote or you assumed it to be from Dashaadhyaayi. I would not

think

> the learned commentator will pass of Varaha Mihira's shloka as his

own.

>

> Chandrashekhar.

>

> vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> >

> > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> >

> > As i have mentioned earlier,i have a strong conviction that

> > Bhattotpala is not wrong.

> >

> > I just wanted to cross check whether Bhattotpala is speaking about

> > any Trimshamsha chakras.No is what my mind says,but just wanted to

> > cross check.

> >

> > Now considering your current reply,i shall prepare the paper as

> > suggested by some members,and your kind self may review.

> >

> > It is not any short translation as you assume.I am only quoting

the

> > relevant parts.If it was not in detail,how would dashadhyayi

serve as

> > a boat to cross the vast ocean of astrological knowledge.How will

it

> > make it crystal clear on what is what,to even a student like me.

> >

> > I thank you for all your valuable time and knowledge shared.I will

> > present my view,in an orgainized fashion in front of the

astrological

> > community for their review.

> > I seek your blessings for success provided my view is correct.

> >

> > Respect

> > Pradeep

> >

> >

> > <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > >

> > > Dear Pradeep,

> > >

> > > I doubt they would serve any purpose as already the assumption

that

> > they

> > > will not fit in any astrological and linguistic relevance to the

> > > original shloka is hinted at. I do not know why that should be

so,

> > but

> > > that to me is apparent. As Bhattotpala has analyzed every word

in

> > the

> > > shlokas in depth, every interpretation that he has done of a

shloka

> > runs

> > > to one to one quarter of a page at the very least, unlike the

short

> > > translations that you have given from Dashaadhyaayi.

> > >

> > > With your mind apparently made up that it can not fit

> > astrologically and

> > > linguistically with the original shlokas I do not think typing

that

> > in

> > > Sanskrit fonts is worth the effort. It appears that you do not

> > accept

> > > the authority of Prashna Marga, that you quote in support of

> > > authenticity of Dashaadhyaayi, when it praises the commentary by

> > > Bhattotpala. The reason for this is difficult to understand.

> > >

> > > Chandrashekhar.

> > >

> > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > >

> > > > It would be great,if you could quote those sanskrit shlokas

and

> > also

> > > > the hindi ones(sitaram jha).

> > > >

> > > > We could see how these ones are fitting astrologically and

> > > > linguistically with the original shloka.Hope other scholars

will

> > also

> > > > comment.

> > > >

> > > > Respect

> > > > Pradeep

> > > >

> > > >

> > <%40>

> > > > <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > >

> > > > > I quoted from original Sanskrit commentary of

Bhattotpala,which

> > you

> > > > did

> > > > > question. I do not have his English translation as you

assumed.

> > > > >

> > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > >

> > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > > >

> > > > > > I have always respected scholars of the earlier or olden

days

> > and

> > > > > > considered them above contemporary astrologers.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Malayalam sanskrit link was mentioned,for the benefit of

those

> > (if

> > > > > > any) thinking sanskrit and devanagari script as alien to

> > Kerala.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Astrology,Literature and Ayurveda including the Charaka

and

> > > > > > Sushrutha Samhithas,were studied from granthas written in

> > > > Devanagari

> > > > > > script and not malayalam.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Sufficient language skills and high astrological knowledge

> > (basics)

> > > > > > is the order that i prefer.Dashadhyayi kara came from a

> > lineage

> > > > > > which had sustained and enriched the rich heritage of

Sanskrit

> > > > > > literature.Astrology knowledge is not to mention.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Bhatolpala translations/interpretations cannot match the

> > original

> > > > > > Bhatolpala commentary.Thus i do not suspect Bhatolpala.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Respect

> > > > > > Pradeep

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > <%40>

> > > > <%40>

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

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

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > It is good you respect the commentators from an older

era.

> > So

> > > > why

> > > > > > doubt

> > > > > > > Bhattotpala and Krishna Mishra?

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Most of the languages of India are derived from

Sanskrit so

> > > > Hindi

> > > > > > > translations are also not lees in translating Sanskrit

> > texts,

> > > > than

> > > > > > > Malayalam ones. And Hindi developed in the Land of

Varaha

> > Mihira

> > > > > > Himself

> > > > > > > and had not mixture of Tamil in it. So using your

logic, the

> > > > hindi

> > > > > > > translations may be more near accuracy in translation of

> > > > Sanskrit

> > > > > > texts.

> > > > > > > And then Varanasi has always been accepted as the

highest

> > seat

> > > > of

> > > > > > > Sanskrit learning through out India, so the translators

from

> > > > > > there

> > > > > > > should be highly respected, is that not right?

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Swamsha can mean two things.Shri Sanjay Rath had

asked me

> > the

> > > > > > same

> > > > > > > > question an year back.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > 1)Swa -Amsha - Own amsha or belonging to him - ie

Mars is

> > in

> > > > > > Aries

> > > > > > > > amsha.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > 2)Swamsha - Similar to the vargas he has attained as

in

> > > > > > shadvarga of

> > > > > > > > a planet or lagna.(In whose Rashi he is palced,having

> > > > > > > > navamsha,drekkana etc)

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > In Karakamsha phala adhyaya - Sage is talking about

> > swamsha

> > > > as in

> > > > > > > > point 2.There is no ambiguity as sage is not only

talking

> > > > about

> > > > > > AK

> > > > > > > > in his own amsha ,but results for having amsha in

meshadi

> > > > > > arashige

> > > > > > > > (Rashis from Mesha onwards).

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Yes i agree with your point regarding recent

commentators

> > > > > > > > translators.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Dashadhyayi was written almost 800 years back.Thus it

is

> > not

> > > > > > > > new.Moreover Dashadhyayi kara quotes giant scholars

who

> > had

> > > > lived

> > > > > > > > before him.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Even among scholars from later period (1800/1900),Late

> > > > > > D.V.SubbuRao

> > > > > > > > has similar views.Shri Sanjay Rath has similar views

(for

> > > > amshaka

> > > > > > > > alone).

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Any local language scholar ,that i am reading uses

amshas

> > > > > > > > extensively.Sanskrit to malayalam translations are

crystal

> > > > clear

> > > > > > as

> > > > > > > > compared to sanskrit to english.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > As you may know - Malayalam is a comparatively new

> > language

> > > > and

> > > > > > is

> > > > > > > > mixture of Sanskrit and Tamil.Thus most of the

sanskrit

> > words

> > > > are

> > > > > > > > not new for us.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Regarding complexity ,you are true.That is why i would

> > like to

> > > > > > trust

> > > > > > > > those who lived 800 years ago, as they had

> > > > uncorrupted,knowledge

> > > > > > > > handed down through Gurukula Sampradaaya.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Respect

> > > > > > > > Pradeep

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > <%40>

> > > > <%40>

> > > > > > <%40>

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

Chandrashekhar

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

> > > > > > > > >

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

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > What is swamsha of a graha? Barring Sun and Moon

every

> > graha

> > > > > > lords

> > > > > > > > over

> > > > > > > > > two rasis and by extension 18 navamshas at the

least.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Nobody is disputing that navamsha is an amsha in

another

> > > > rasi

> > > > > > and

> > > > > > > > ruled

> > > > > > > > > by some graha that need not be the one who rules the

> > Rasi.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > I do not know why you think that I feel that you do

not

> > > > > > understand

> > > > > > > > Shad

> > > > > > > > > is 6. I only pointed out why Varge used with

Shadavarga

> > is

> > > > not

> > > > > > > > plural,

> > > > > > > > > as you were claiming.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > I have no hesitation in accepting that the shlokas

were

> > > > written

> > > > > > > > > thousands of year earlier and am rather am proud of

the

> > > > depth

> > > > > > of

> > > > > > > > > knowledge of the sages of those times. But many of

the

> > > > > > > > commentaries and

> > > > > > > > > even other classics are of much more modern times.

> > However

> > > > the

> > > > > > > > antiquity

> > > > > > > > > or otherwise of an original text does not deduct

from

> > its

> > > > > > quality.

> > > > > > > > At

> > > > > > > > > the same time one must understand that most of the

> > ancient

> > > > > > texts

> > > > > > > > had

> > > > > > > > > many commentaries for each of the text and that too

by

> > some

> > > > > > > > learned

> > > > > > > > > astrologers of the day. Had translation of the

ancient

> > texts

> > > > > > and

> > > > > > > > their

> > > > > > > > > interpretation been so easy, there would not have

been

> > so

> > > > many

> > > > > > > > > commentator of each of the texts. So it may be

assuming

> > too

> > > > > > much

> > > > > > > > if we

> > > > > > > > > say that only this commentator is right and

everybody

> > else

> > > > is

> > > > > > > > wrong.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Take care,

> > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > 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

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > <%40>

> > > > <%40>

> > > > > > <%40>

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

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

> > 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>

> > > > <%40>

> > > > > > <%40>

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

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

> > > > > > > > > > > > <%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>

> > > > > > <%40>

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

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

> > > > > > > > > > > > <%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>

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

> > > > > > > > > > <%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

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In

 

> > <%40>

> > > > <%40>

> > > > > > <%40>

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

> > > > > > > > > > <%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

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

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

----

> > ----

> > > > ---

> > > > > > ----

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

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

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

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

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No virus found in this

incoming

> > > > message.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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]

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

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

----

> > ----

> > > > ---

> > > > > > ----

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

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

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

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

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No virus found in this incoming

> > message.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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]

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

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

----

> > ----

> > > > ---

> > > > > > ----

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

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

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No virus found in this incoming

message.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database:

> > > > 269.9.0/853 -

> > > > > > > > Release

> > > > > > > > > > > > Date:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 6/18/2007 3:02 PM

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

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

been

> > > > > > removed]

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

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

----

> > ----

> > > > ---

> > > > > > ----

> > > > > > > > -

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

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database:

> > 269.9.6/865 -

> > > > > > Release

> > > > > > > > Date:

> > > > > > > > > > > > 6/24/2007 8:33 AM

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

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

> > > > removed]

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > >

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

----

> > ----

> > > > ---

> > > > > > -

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

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database:

269.9.14/882 -

> > > > Release

> > > > > > > > Date:

> > > > > > > > > > 6/30/2007 3:10 PM

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

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

> > removed]

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

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

----

> > ----

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

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

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

> > Release

> > > > > > Date:

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

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

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

removed]

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

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

----

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

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.10.2/890 -

Release

> > > > Date:

> > > > > > 7/7/2007 3:26 PM

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

[Guest guest]

Dear Pradeep,

 

I never claimed to have quoted Bhattotpala in full, neither did I insist

that only his commentary is to be accepted. It is you who claimed to

have quoted from Dashaadhyaayi and claimed its superiority over all others.

 

Chandrashekhar.

 

vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

>

> Dear Chandrashekhar ji

>

> Can you point to a single mail where you have quoted Bhatotpala in

> full.Doest it mean bhatotpala is not expansive or you were

> selective.I dont think so.Similarly Dashadhyayi kara too explains

> each and every word and some times even the purpose of a

> letter.Dr.Raman too had mentioned this.The explanations spans pages

> and you will then know how difficult it is for me to write all those

> over here.Apart from his opinion views of various scholars are

> mentioned too.

>

> Bbhatotpala is a great scholar and he will never mistranslate.As i

> have mentioned earlier,it is the limitations of contemproary scholars

> that is leading to chaos.

>

> Now it was view of Prashnamarga on Dashadhyayi - pl find the shloka

>

> Adrishtwa yo dashadhyayeem

> phalamdeshtumichathi

> Ichathyeva Samudrasya

> Tharanam sa Plavam Vina

>

> Do you think Dr.Raman has misquoted.I have always found that you used

> to study facts before pressing the send button.I am sad to say that

> over the last few days,i see a difference.

>

> Respect

> Pradeep

>

> <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> <chandrashekhar46 wrote:

> >

> > Dear Pradeep,

> >

> > I think you did not understand me well when I said the

> Bhattotpala's

> > commentary is expansive. If you want I would give a very short

> example

> > below about how he begins with a shloka.

> > Shloka 3: " Horetyahoraatravikalpameke..... "

> >

> > Bhattotpala begins with " Horeti| horaarthaM shaastraM horaa

> > taamahoraatravikalpameke vaMChati| ahasch raatrishcaahoraatro

> > horaashabdenocyate|....... " for about one page, quoting from Vyasa

> etc.

> > to justify his interpretation of each word. I did not find that in

> the

> > shlokas you gave from Dashaadhyaayi. By the way it is not

> Dashaadhyaayi

> > that is to serve as a boat to cross the vast ocean of astrological

> > knowledge, that is the shloka no. 2 from Brihat Jataka. Either

> there is

> > a misquote or you assumed it to be from Dashaadhyaayi. I would not

> think

> > the learned commentator will pass of Varaha Mihira's shloka as his

> own.

> >

> > Chandrashekhar.

> >

> > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > >

> > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > >

> > > As i have mentioned earlier,i have a strong conviction that

> > > Bhattotpala is not wrong.

> > >

> > > I just wanted to cross check whether Bhattotpala is speaking about

> > > any Trimshamsha chakras.No is what my mind says,but just wanted to

> > > cross check.

> > >

> > > Now considering your current reply,i shall prepare the paper as

> > > suggested by some members,and your kind self may review.

> > >

> > > It is not any short translation as you assume.I am only quoting

> the

> > > relevant parts.If it was not in detail,how would dashadhyayi

> serve as

> > > a boat to cross the vast ocean of astrological knowledge.How will

> it

> > > make it crystal clear on what is what,to even a student like me.

> > >

> > > I thank you for all your valuable time and knowledge shared.I will

> > > present my view,in an orgainized fashion in front of the

> astrological

> > > community for their review.

> > > I seek your blessings for success provided my view is correct.

> > >

> > > Respect

> > > Pradeep

> > >

> > >

> <%40>

> > > <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > >

> > > > I doubt they would serve any purpose as already the assumption

> that

> > > they

> > > > will not fit in any astrological and linguistic relevance to the

> > > > original shloka is hinted at. I do not know why that should be

> so,

> > > but

> > > > that to me is apparent. As Bhattotpala has analyzed every word

> in

> > > the

> > > > shlokas in depth, every interpretation that he has done of a

> shloka

> > > runs

> > > > to one to one quarter of a page at the very least, unlike the

> short

> > > > translations that you have given from Dashaadhyaayi.

> > > >

> > > > With your mind apparently made up that it can not fit

> > > astrologically and

> > > > linguistically with the original shlokas I do not think typing

> that

> > > in

> > > > Sanskrit fonts is worth the effort. It appears that you do not

> > > accept

> > > > the authority of Prashna Marga, that you quote in support of

> > > > authenticity of Dashaadhyaayi, when it praises the commentary by

> > > > Bhattotpala. The reason for this is difficult to understand.

> > > >

> > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > >

> > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > >

> > > > > It would be great,if you could quote those sanskrit shlokas

> and

> > > also

> > > > > the hindi ones(sitaram jha).

> > > > >

> > > > > We could see how these ones are fitting astrologically and

> > > > > linguistically with the original shloka.Hope other scholars

> will

> > > also

> > > > > comment.

> > > > >

> > > > > Respect

> > > > > Pradeep

> > > > >

> > > > >

> <%40>

> > > <%40>

> > > > > <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > > >

> > > > > > I quoted from original Sanskrit commentary of

> Bhattotpala,which

> > > you

> > > > > did

> > > > > > question. I do not have his English translation as you

> assumed.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > I have always respected scholars of the earlier or olden

> days

> > > and

> > > > > > > considered them above contemporary astrologers.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Malayalam sanskrit link was mentioned,for the benefit of

> those

> > > (if

> > > > > > > any) thinking sanskrit and devanagari script as alien to

> > > Kerala.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Astrology,Literature and Ayurveda including the Charaka

> and

> > > > > > > Sushrutha Samhithas,were studied from granthas written in

> > > > > Devanagari

> > > > > > > script and not malayalam.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Sufficient language skills and high astrological knowledge

> > > (basics)

> > > > > > > is the order that i prefer.Dashadhyayi kara came from a

> > > lineage

> > > > > > > which had sustained and enriched the rich heritage of

> Sanskrit

> > > > > > > literature.Astrology knowledge is not to mention.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Bhatolpala translations/interpretations cannot match the

> > > original

> > > > > > > Bhatolpala commentary.Thus i do not suspect Bhatolpala.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Respect

> > > > > > > Pradeep

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> <%40>

> > > <%40>

> > > > > <%40>

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

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

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > It is good you respect the commentators from an older

> era.

> > > So

> > > > > why

> > > > > > > doubt

> > > > > > > > Bhattotpala and Krishna Mishra?

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Most of the languages of India are derived from

> Sanskrit so

> > > > > Hindi

> > > > > > > > translations are also not lees in translating Sanskrit

> > > texts,

> > > > > than

> > > > > > > > Malayalam ones. And Hindi developed in the Land of

> Varaha

> > > Mihira

> > > > > > > Himself

> > > > > > > > and had not mixture of Tamil in it. So using your

> logic, the

> > > > > hindi

> > > > > > > > translations may be more near accuracy in translation of

> > > > > Sanskrit

> > > > > > > texts.

> > > > > > > > And then Varanasi has always been accepted as the

> highest

> > > seat

> > > > > of

> > > > > > > > Sanskrit learning through out India, so the translators

> from

> > > > > > > there

> > > > > > > > should be highly respected, is that not right?

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > > > > >

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

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Swamsha can mean two things.Shri Sanjay Rath had

> asked me

> > > the

> > > > > > > same

> > > > > > > > > question an year back.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > 1)Swa -Amsha - Own amsha or belonging to him - ie

> Mars is

> > > in

> > > > > > > Aries

> > > > > > > > > amsha.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > 2)Swamsha - Similar to the vargas he has attained as

> in

> > > > > > > shadvarga of

> > > > > > > > > a planet or lagna.(In whose Rashi he is palced,having

> > > > > > > > > navamsha,drekkana etc)

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > In Karakamsha phala adhyaya - Sage is talking about

> > > swamsha

> > > > > as in

> > > > > > > > > point 2.There is no ambiguity as sage is not only

> talking

> > > > > about

> > > > > > > AK

> > > > > > > > > in his own amsha ,but results for having amsha in

> meshadi

> > > > > > > arashige

> > > > > > > > > (Rashis from Mesha onwards).

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Yes i agree with your point regarding recent

> commentators

> > > > > > > > > translators.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Dashadhyayi was written almost 800 years back.Thus it

> is

> > > not

> > > > > > > > > new.Moreover Dashadhyayi kara quotes giant scholars

> who

> > > had

> > > > > lived

> > > > > > > > > before him.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Even among scholars from later period (1800/1900),Late

> > > > > > > D.V.SubbuRao

> > > > > > > > > has similar views.Shri Sanjay Rath has similar views

> (for

> > > > > amshaka

> > > > > > > > > alone).

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Any local language scholar ,that i am reading uses

> amshas

> > > > > > > > > extensively.Sanskrit to malayalam translations are

> crystal

> > > > > clear

> > > > > > > as

> > > > > > > > > compared to sanskrit to english.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > As you may know - Malayalam is a comparatively new

> > > language

> > > > > and

> > > > > > > is

> > > > > > > > > mixture of Sanskrit and Tamil.Thus most of the

> sanskrit

> > > words

> > > > > are

> > > > > > > > > not new for us.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Regarding complexity ,you are true.That is why i would

> > > like to

> > > > > > > trust

> > > > > > > > > those who lived 800 years ago, as they had

> > > > > uncorrupted,knowledge

> > > > > > > > > handed down through Gurukula Sampradaaya.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Respect

> > > > > > > > > Pradeep

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> <%40>

> > > <%40>

> > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > <%40>

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

> Chandrashekhar

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

> > > > > > > > > >

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

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > What is swamsha of a graha? Barring Sun and Moon

> every

> > > graha

> > > > > > > lords

> > > > > > > > > over

> > > > > > > > > > two rasis and by extension 18 navamshas at the

> least.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Nobody is disputing that navamsha is an amsha in

> another

> > > > > rasi

> > > > > > > and

> > > > > > > > > ruled

> > > > > > > > > > by some graha that need not be the one who rules the

> > > Rasi.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > I do not know why you think that I feel that you do

> not

> > > > > > > understand

> > > > > > > > > Shad

> > > > > > > > > > is 6. I only pointed out why Varge used with

> Shadavarga

> > > is

> > > > > not

> > > > > > > > > plural,

> > > > > > > > > > as you were claiming.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > I have no hesitation in accepting that the shlokas

> were

> > > > > written

> > > > > > > > > > thousands of year earlier and am rather am proud of

> the

> > > > > depth

> > > > > > > of

> > > > > > > > > > knowledge of the sages of those times. But many of

> the

> > > > > > > > > commentaries and

> > > > > > > > > > even other classics are of much more modern times.

> > > However

> > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > antiquity

> > > > > > > > > > or otherwise of an original text does not deduct

> from

> > > its

> > > > > > > quality.

> > > > > > > > > At

> > > > > > > > > > the same time one must understand that most of the

> > > ancient

> > > > > > > texts

> > > > > > > > > had

> > > > > > > > > > many commentaries for each of the text and that too

> by

> > > some

> > > > > > > > > learned

> > > > > > > > > > astrologers of the day. Had translation of the

> ancient

> > > texts

> > > > > > > and

> > > > > > > > > their

> > > > > > > > > > interpretation been so easy, there would not have

> been

> > > so

> > > > > many

> > > > > > > > > > commentator of each of the texts. So it may be

> assuming

> > > too

> > > > > > > much

> > > > > > > > > if we

> > > > > > > > > > say that only this commentator is right and

> everybody

> > > else

> > > > > is

> > > > > > > > > wrong.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Take care,

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

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > 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

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> <%40>

> > > <%40>

> > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > <%40>

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

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

> > > 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>

> > > <%40>

> > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > <%40>

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

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

> > > > > > > > > > > > > <%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>

> > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > <%40>

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

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

> > > > > > > > > > > > > <%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>

> > > > > > > <%40>

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

> > > > > > > > > > > <%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

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In

> <%40>

> > > <%40>

> > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > <%40>

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

> > > > > > > > > > > <%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

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

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

> ----

> > > ----

> > > > > ---

> > > > > > > ----

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

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

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

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

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No virus found in this

> incoming

> > > > > message.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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]

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

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

> ----

> > > ----

> > > > > ---

> > > > > > > ----

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

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

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

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

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No virus found in this incoming

> > > message.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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]

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

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

> ----

> > > ----

> > > > > ---

> > > > > > > ----

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

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

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No virus found in this incoming

> message.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database:

> > > > > 269.9.0/853 -

> > > > > > > > > Release

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Date:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 6/18/2007 3:02 PM

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

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

> been

> > > > > > > removed]

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

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

> ----

> > > ----

> > > > > ---

> > > > > > > ----

> > > > > > > > > -

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

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database:

> > > 269.9.6/865 -

> > > > > > > Release

> > > > > > > > > Date:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > 6/24/2007 8:33 AM

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

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

> > > > > removed]

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

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

> ----

> > > ----

> > > > > ---

> > > > > > > -

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

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database:

> 269.9.14/882 -

> > > > > Release

> > > > > > > > > Date:

> > > > > > > > > > > 6/30/2007 3:10 PM

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > >

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

> > > removed]

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

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

> ----

> > > ----

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

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

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

> > > Release

> > > > > > > Date:

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

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

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

> removed]

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

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

> ----

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

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.10.2/890 -

> Release

> > > > > Date:

> > > > > > > 7/7/2007 3:26 PM

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

[Guest guest]

Dear Chandrashekhar ji

 

I did not claim any superiority.I have respect for Bhattotpala.But

you did try to bring down dashadhyayi,by commenting the opinion of

prashnamarga as misquote.

 

I did claim about the praise it has got from texts like Prashnamarga.

 

The main claim was on something else - Dashadhyayi did give

translation of certain shlokas like kemadruma -with supportive

explanations from multiple schloars,which is sufficient enough to

see how amshas have to be seen.Detailed explanation from a scholar

of yesteryear ias always handy whenever we are in doubt.

 

I did place dashadhyayi (written 800 years back) above contemporary

translations.I still hold on to that view.

 

Respect

Pardeep

 

, Chandrashekhar

<chandrashekhar46 wrote:

>

> Dear Pradeep,

>

> I never claimed to have quoted Bhattotpala in full, neither did I

insist

> that only his commentary is to be accepted. It is you who claimed

to

> have quoted from Dashaadhyaayi and claimed its superiority over

all others.

>

> Chandrashekhar.

>

> vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> >

> > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> >

> > Can you point to a single mail where you have quoted Bhatotpala

in

> > full.Doest it mean bhatotpala is not expansive or you were

> > selective.I dont think so.Similarly Dashadhyayi kara too explains

> > each and every word and some times even the purpose of a

> > letter.Dr.Raman too had mentioned this.The explanations spans

pages

> > and you will then know how difficult it is for me to write all

those

> > over here.Apart from his opinion views of various scholars are

> > mentioned too.

> >

> > Bbhatotpala is a great scholar and he will never mistranslate.As

i

> > have mentioned earlier,it is the limitations of contemproary

scholars

> > that is leading to chaos.

> >

> > Now it was view of Prashnamarga on Dashadhyayi - pl find the

shloka

> >

> > Adrishtwa yo dashadhyayeem

> > phalamdeshtumichathi

> > Ichathyeva Samudrasya

> > Tharanam sa Plavam Vina

> >

> > Do you think Dr.Raman has misquoted.I have always found that you

used

> > to study facts before pressing the send button.I am sad to say

that

> > over the last few days,i see a difference.

> >

> > Respect

> > Pradeep

> >

> > <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > >

> > > Dear Pradeep,

> > >

> > > I think you did not understand me well when I said the

> > Bhattotpala's

> > > commentary is expansive. If you want I would give a very short

> > example

> > > below about how he begins with a shloka.

> > > Shloka 3: " Horetyahoraatravikalpameke..... "

> > >

> > > Bhattotpala begins with " Horeti| horaarthaM shaastraM horaa

> > > taamahoraatravikalpameke vaMChati| ahasch raatrishcaahoraatro

> > > horaashabdenocyate|....... " for about one page, quoting from

Vyasa

> > etc.

> > > to justify his interpretation of each word. I did not find

that in

> > the

> > > shlokas you gave from Dashaadhyaayi. By the way it is not

> > Dashaadhyaayi

> > > that is to serve as a boat to cross the vast ocean of

astrological

> > > knowledge, that is the shloka no. 2 from Brihat Jataka. Either

> > there is

> > > a misquote or you assumed it to be from Dashaadhyaayi. I would

not

> > think

> > > the learned commentator will pass of Varaha Mihira's shloka as

his

> > own.

> > >

> > > Chandrashekhar.

> > >

> > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > >

> > > > As i have mentioned earlier,i have a strong conviction that

> > > > Bhattotpala is not wrong.

> > > >

> > > > I just wanted to cross check whether Bhattotpala is speaking

about

> > > > any Trimshamsha chakras.No is what my mind says,but just

wanted to

> > > > cross check.

> > > >

> > > > Now considering your current reply,i shall prepare the paper

as

> > > > suggested by some members,and your kind self may review.

> > > >

> > > > It is not any short translation as you assume.I am only

quoting

> > the

> > > > relevant parts.If it was not in detail,how would dashadhyayi

> > serve as

> > > > a boat to cross the vast ocean of astrological knowledge.How

will

> > it

> > > > make it crystal clear on what is what,to even a student like

me.

> > > >

> > > > I thank you for all your valuable time and knowledge

shared.I will

> > > > present my view,in an orgainized fashion in front of the

> > astrological

> > > > community for their review.

> > > > I seek your blessings for success provided my view is

correct.

> > > >

> > > > Respect

> > > > Pradeep

> > > >

> > > >

> > <%40>

> > > > <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > >

> > > > > I doubt they would serve any purpose as already the

assumption

> > that

> > > > they

> > > > > will not fit in any astrological and linguistic relevance

to the

> > > > > original shloka is hinted at. I do not know why that

should be

> > so,

> > > > but

> > > > > that to me is apparent. As Bhattotpala has analyzed every

word

> > in

> > > > the

> > > > > shlokas in depth, every interpretation that he has done of

a

> > shloka

> > > > runs

> > > > > to one to one quarter of a page at the very least, unlike

the

> > short

> > > > > translations that you have given from Dashaadhyaayi.

> > > > >

> > > > > With your mind apparently made up that it can not fit

> > > > astrologically and

> > > > > linguistically with the original shlokas I do not think

typing

> > that

> > > > in

> > > > > Sanskrit fonts is worth the effort. It appears that you do

not

> > > > accept

> > > > > the authority of Prashna Marga, that you quote in support

of

> > > > > authenticity of Dashaadhyaayi, when it praises the

commentary by

> > > > > Bhattotpala. The reason for this is difficult to

understand.

> > > > >

> > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > >

> > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > > >

> > > > > > It would be great,if you could quote those sanskrit

shlokas

> > and

> > > > also

> > > > > > the hindi ones(sitaram jha).

> > > > > >

> > > > > > We could see how these ones are fitting astrologically

and

> > > > > > linguistically with the original shloka.Hope other

scholars

> > will

> > > > also

> > > > > > comment.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Respect

> > > > > > Pradeep

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > <%40>

> > > > <%40>

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

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

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > I quoted from original Sanskrit commentary of

> > Bhattotpala,which

> > > > you

> > > > > > did

> > > > > > > question. I do not have his English translation as you

> > assumed.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > I have always respected scholars of the earlier or

olden

> > days

> > > > and

> > > > > > > > considered them above contemporary astrologers.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Malayalam sanskrit link was mentioned,for the

benefit of

> > those

> > > > (if

> > > > > > > > any) thinking sanskrit and devanagari script as

alien to

> > > > Kerala.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Astrology,Literature and Ayurveda including the

Charaka

> > and

> > > > > > > > Sushrutha Samhithas,were studied from granthas

written in

> > > > > > Devanagari

> > > > > > > > script and not malayalam.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Sufficient language skills and high astrological

knowledge

> > > > (basics)

> > > > > > > > is the order that i prefer.Dashadhyayi kara came

from a

> > > > lineage

> > > > > > > > which had sustained and enriched the rich heritage of

> > Sanskrit

> > > > > > > > literature.Astrology knowledge is not to mention.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Bhatolpala translations/interpretations cannot match

the

> > > > original

> > > > > > > > Bhatolpala commentary.Thus i do not suspect

Bhatolpala.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Respect

> > > > > > > > Pradeep

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > <%40>

> > > > <%40>

> > > > > > <%40>

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

Chandrashekhar

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

> > > > > > > > >

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

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > It is good you respect the commentators from an

older

> > era.

> > > > So

> > > > > > why

> > > > > > > > doubt

> > > > > > > > > Bhattotpala and Krishna Mishra?

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Most of the languages of India are derived from

> > Sanskrit so

> > > > > > Hindi

> > > > > > > > > translations are also not lees in translating

Sanskrit

> > > > texts,

> > > > > > than

> > > > > > > > > Malayalam ones. And Hindi developed in the Land of

> > Varaha

> > > > Mihira

> > > > > > > > Himself

> > > > > > > > > and had not mixture of Tamil in it. So using your

> > logic, the

> > > > > > hindi

> > > > > > > > > translations may be more near accuracy in

translation of

> > > > > > Sanskrit

> > > > > > > > texts.

> > > > > > > > > And then Varanasi has always been accepted as the

> > highest

> > > > seat

> > > > > > of

> > > > > > > > > Sanskrit learning through out India, so the

translators

> > from

> > > > > > > > there

> > > > > > > > > should be highly respected, is that not right?

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > > > > >

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

> > > > > > > > > >

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

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Swamsha can mean two things.Shri Sanjay Rath had

> > asked me

> > > > the

> > > > > > > > same

> > > > > > > > > > question an year back.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > 1)Swa -Amsha - Own amsha or belonging to him - ie

> > Mars is

> > > > in

> > > > > > > > Aries

> > > > > > > > > > amsha.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > 2)Swamsha - Similar to the vargas he has

attained as

> > in

> > > > > > > > shadvarga of

> > > > > > > > > > a planet or lagna.(In whose Rashi he is

palced,having

> > > > > > > > > > navamsha,drekkana etc)

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > In Karakamsha phala adhyaya - Sage is talking

about

> > > > swamsha

> > > > > > as in

> > > > > > > > > > point 2.There is no ambiguity as sage is not only

> > talking

> > > > > > about

> > > > > > > > AK

> > > > > > > > > > in his own amsha ,but results for having amsha in

> > meshadi

> > > > > > > > arashige

> > > > > > > > > > (Rashis from Mesha onwards).

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Yes i agree with your point regarding recent

> > commentators

> > > > > > > > > > translators.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Dashadhyayi was written almost 800 years

back.Thus it

> > is

> > > > not

> > > > > > > > > > new.Moreover Dashadhyayi kara quotes giant

scholars

> > who

> > > > had

> > > > > > lived

> > > > > > > > > > before him.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Even among scholars from later period

(1800/1900),Late

> > > > > > > > D.V.SubbuRao

> > > > > > > > > > has similar views.Shri Sanjay Rath has similar

views

> > (for

> > > > > > amshaka

> > > > > > > > > > alone).

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Any local language scholar ,that i am reading

uses

> > amshas

> > > > > > > > > > extensively.Sanskrit to malayalam translations

are

> > crystal

> > > > > > clear

> > > > > > > > as

> > > > > > > > > > compared to sanskrit to english.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > As you may know - Malayalam is a comparatively

new

> > > > language

> > > > > > and

> > > > > > > > is

> > > > > > > > > > mixture of Sanskrit and Tamil.Thus most of the

> > sanskrit

> > > > words

> > > > > > are

> > > > > > > > > > not new for us.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Regarding complexity ,you are true.That is why i

would

> > > > like to

> > > > > > > > trust

> > > > > > > > > > those who lived 800 years ago, as they had

> > > > > > uncorrupted,knowledge

> > > > > > > > > > handed down through Gurukula Sampradaaya.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Respect

> > > > > > > > > > Pradeep

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > <%40>

> > > > <%40>

> > > > > > <%40>

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

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

> > Chandrashekhar

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

> > > > > > > > > > >

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

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > What is swamsha of a graha? Barring Sun and

Moon

> > every

> > > > graha

> > > > > > > > lords

> > > > > > > > > > over

> > > > > > > > > > > two rasis and by extension 18 navamshas at the

> > least.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Nobody is disputing that navamsha is an amsha

in

> > another

> > > > > > rasi

> > > > > > > > and

> > > > > > > > > > ruled

> > > > > > > > > > > by some graha that need not be the one who

rules the

> > > > Rasi.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > I do not know why you think that I feel that

you do

> > not

> > > > > > > > understand

> > > > > > > > > > Shad

> > > > > > > > > > > is 6. I only pointed out why Varge used with

> > Shadavarga

> > > > is

> > > > > > not

> > > > > > > > > > plural,

> > > > > > > > > > > as you were claiming.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > I have no hesitation in accepting that the

shlokas

> > were

> > > > > > written

> > > > > > > > > > > thousands of year earlier and am rather am

proud of

> > the

> > > > > > depth

> > > > > > > > of

> > > > > > > > > > > knowledge of the sages of those times. But

many of

> > the

> > > > > > > > > > commentaries and

> > > > > > > > > > > even other classics are of much more modern

times.

> > > > However

> > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > antiquity

> > > > > > > > > > > or otherwise of an original text does not

deduct

> > from

> > > > its

> > > > > > > > quality.

> > > > > > > > > > At

> > > > > > > > > > > the same time one must understand that most of

the

> > > > ancient

> > > > > > > > texts

> > > > > > > > > > had

> > > > > > > > > > > many commentaries for each of the text and

that too

> > by

> > > > some

> > > > > > > > > > learned

> > > > > > > > > > > astrologers of the day. Had translation of the

> > ancient

> > > > texts

> > > > > > > > and

> > > > > > > > > > their

> > > > > > > > > > > interpretation been so easy, there would not

have

> > been

> > > > so

> > > > > > many

> > > > > > > > > > > commentator of each of the texts. So it may be

> > assuming

> > > > too

> > > > > > > > much

> > > > > > > > > > if we

> > > > > > > > > > > say that only this commentator is right and

> > everybody

> > > > else

> > > > > > is

> > > > > > > > > > wrong.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Take care,

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

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > 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

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > <%40>

> > > > <%40>

> > > > > > <%40>

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

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

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

> > > > 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>

> > > > <%40>

> > > > > > <%40>

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

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

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

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > <%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>

> > > > > > <%40>

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

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

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

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > <%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

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In

 

> > <%40>

> > > > <%40>

> > > > > > <%40>

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

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

> > > > > > > > > > > > <%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

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In

> > <%

40>

> > > > <%40>

> > > > > > <%40>

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

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

> > > > > > > > > > > > <%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

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

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

-----

> > ----

> > > > ----

> > > > > > ---

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

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

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

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

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

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No virus found in this

> > incoming

> > > > > > message.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Checked by AVG Free

Edition.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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]

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

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

-----

> > ----

> > > > ----

> > > > > > ---

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

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

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

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

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

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No virus found in this

incoming

> > > > message.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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]

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

-----

> > ----

> > > > ----

> > > > > > ---

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

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

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

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No virus found in this incoming

> > message.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Version: 7.5.446 / Virus

Database:

> > > > > > 269.9.0/853 -

> > > > > > > > > > Release

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Date:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 6/18/2007 3:02 PM

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

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

have

> > been

> > > > > > > > removed]

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

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

-----

> > ----

> > > > ----

> > > > > > ---

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

> > > > > > > > > > -

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

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No virus found in this incoming

message.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database:

> > > > 269.9.6/865 -

> > > > > > > > Release

> > > > > > > > > > Date:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 6/24/2007 8:33 AM

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

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

have been

> > > > > > removed]

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

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

-----

> > ----

> > > > ----

> > > > > > ---

> > > > > > > > -

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

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database:

> > 269.9.14/882 -

> > > > > > Release

> > > > > > > > > > Date:

> > > > > > > > > > > > 6/30/2007 3:10 PM

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

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

been

> > > > removed]

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > >

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

-----

> > ----

> > > > ----

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

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database:

269.10.0/886 -

> > > > Release

> > > > > > > > Date:

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

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

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

> > removed]

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

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

-----

> > ----

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

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.10.2/890 -

> > Release

> > > > > > Date:

> > > > > > > > 7/7/2007 3:26 PM

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

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

removed]

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

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

-----

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

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Version: 7.5.476 / Virus Database: 269.10.4/898 -

Release

> > > > Date:

> > > > > > 7/12/2007 4:08 PM

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

[Guest guest]

Dear Pradeep,

 

I think it might be a good idea to read th voluminous mails that you

sent on the subject again. I do not think it is right that we take so

much of space of the list.

 

Chandrashekhar.

 

 

 

vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

>

> Dear Chandrashekhar ji

>

> I did not claim any superiority.I have respect for Bhattotpala.But

> you did try to bring down dashadhyayi,by commenting the opinion of

> prashnamarga as misquote.

>

> I did claim about the praise it has got from texts like Prashnamarga.

>

> The main claim was on something else - Dashadhyayi did give

> translation of certain shlokas like kemadruma -with supportive

> explanations from multiple schloars,which is sufficient enough to

> see how amshas have to be seen.Detailed explanation from a scholar

> of yesteryear ias always handy whenever we are in doubt.

>

> I did place dashadhyayi (written 800 years back) above contemporary

> translations.I still hold on to that view.

>

> Respect

> Pardeep

>

>

> <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> <chandrashekhar46 wrote:

> >

> > Dear Pradeep,

> >

> > I never claimed to have quoted Bhattotpala in full, neither did I

> insist

> > that only his commentary is to be accepted. It is you who claimed

> to

> > have quoted from Dashaadhyaayi and claimed its superiority over

> all others.

> >

> > Chandrashekhar.

> >

> > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > >

> > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > >

> > > Can you point to a single mail where you have quoted Bhatotpala

> in

> > > full.Doest it mean bhatotpala is not expansive or you were

> > > selective.I dont think so.Similarly Dashadhyayi kara too explains

> > > each and every word and some times even the purpose of a

> > > letter.Dr.Raman too had mentioned this.The explanations spans

> pages

> > > and you will then know how difficult it is for me to write all

> those

> > > over here.Apart from his opinion views of various scholars are

> > > mentioned too.

> > >

> > > Bbhatotpala is a great scholar and he will never mistranslate.As

> i

> > > have mentioned earlier,it is the limitations of contemproary

> scholars

> > > that is leading to chaos.

> > >

> > > Now it was view of Prashnamarga on Dashadhyayi - pl find the

> shloka

> > >

> > > Adrishtwa yo dashadhyayeem

> > > phalamdeshtumichathi

> > > Ichathyeva Samudrasya

> > > Tharanam sa Plavam Vina

> > >

> > > Do you think Dr.Raman has misquoted.I have always found that you

> used

> > > to study facts before pressing the send button.I am sad to say

> that

> > > over the last few days,i see a difference.

> > >

> > > Respect

> > > Pradeep

> > >

> <%40>

> > > <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > >

> > > > I think you did not understand me well when I said the

> > > Bhattotpala's

> > > > commentary is expansive. If you want I would give a very short

> > > example

> > > > below about how he begins with a shloka.

> > > > Shloka 3: " Horetyahoraatravikalpameke..... "

> > > >

> > > > Bhattotpala begins with " Horeti| horaarthaM shaastraM horaa

> > > > taamahoraatravikalpameke vaMChati| ahasch raatrishcaahoraatro

> > > > horaashabdenocyate|....... " for about one page, quoting from

> Vyasa

> > > etc.

> > > > to justify his interpretation of each word. I did not find

> that in

> > > the

> > > > shlokas you gave from Dashaadhyaayi. By the way it is not

> > > Dashaadhyaayi

> > > > that is to serve as a boat to cross the vast ocean of

> astrological

> > > > knowledge, that is the shloka no. 2 from Brihat Jataka. Either

> > > there is

> > > > a misquote or you assumed it to be from Dashaadhyaayi. I would

> not

> > > think

> > > > the learned commentator will pass of Varaha Mihira's shloka as

> his

> > > own.

> > > >

> > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > >

> > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > >

> > > > > As i have mentioned earlier,i have a strong conviction that

> > > > > Bhattotpala is not wrong.

> > > > >

> > > > > I just wanted to cross check whether Bhattotpala is speaking

> about

> > > > > any Trimshamsha chakras.No is what my mind says,but just

> wanted to

> > > > > cross check.

> > > > >

> > > > > Now considering your current reply,i shall prepare the paper

> as

> > > > > suggested by some members,and your kind self may review.

> > > > >

> > > > > It is not any short translation as you assume.I am only

> quoting

> > > the

> > > > > relevant parts.If it was not in detail,how would dashadhyayi

> > > serve as

> > > > > a boat to cross the vast ocean of astrological knowledge.How

> will

> > > it

> > > > > make it crystal clear on what is what,to even a student like

> me.

> > > > >

> > > > > I thank you for all your valuable time and knowledge

> shared.I will

> > > > > present my view,in an orgainized fashion in front of the

> > > astrological

> > > > > community for their review.

> > > > > I seek your blessings for success provided my view is

> correct.

> > > > >

> > > > > Respect

> > > > > Pradeep

> > > > >

> > > > >

> <%40>

> > > <%40>

> > > > > <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > > >

> > > > > > I doubt they would serve any purpose as already the

> assumption

> > > that

> > > > > they

> > > > > > will not fit in any astrological and linguistic relevance

> to the

> > > > > > original shloka is hinted at. I do not know why that

> should be

> > > so,

> > > > > but

> > > > > > that to me is apparent. As Bhattotpala has analyzed every

> word

> > > in

> > > > > the

> > > > > > shlokas in depth, every interpretation that he has done of

> a

> > > shloka

> > > > > runs

> > > > > > to one to one quarter of a page at the very least, unlike

> the

> > > short

> > > > > > translations that you have given from Dashaadhyaayi.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > With your mind apparently made up that it can not fit

> > > > > astrologically and

> > > > > > linguistically with the original shlokas I do not think

> typing

> > > that

> > > > > in

> > > > > > Sanskrit fonts is worth the effort. It appears that you do

> not

> > > > > accept

> > > > > > the authority of Prashna Marga, that you quote in support

> of

> > > > > > authenticity of Dashaadhyaayi, when it praises the

> commentary by

> > > > > > Bhattotpala. The reason for this is difficult to

> understand.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > It would be great,if you could quote those sanskrit

> shlokas

> > > and

> > > > > also

> > > > > > > the hindi ones(sitaram jha).

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > We could see how these ones are fitting astrologically

> and

> > > > > > > linguistically with the original shloka.Hope other

> scholars

> > > will

> > > > > also

> > > > > > > comment.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Respect

> > > > > > > Pradeep

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> <%40>

> > > <%40>

> > > > > <%40>

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

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

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > I quoted from original Sanskrit commentary of

> > > Bhattotpala,which

> > > > > you

> > > > > > > did

> > > > > > > > question. I do not have his English translation as you

> > > assumed.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > > > > >

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

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > I have always respected scholars of the earlier or

> olden

> > > days

> > > > > and

> > > > > > > > > considered them above contemporary astrologers.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Malayalam sanskrit link was mentioned,for the

> benefit of

> > > those

> > > > > (if

> > > > > > > > > any) thinking sanskrit and devanagari script as

> alien to

> > > > > Kerala.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Astrology,Literature and Ayurveda including the

> Charaka

> > > and

> > > > > > > > > Sushrutha Samhithas,were studied from granthas

> written in

> > > > > > > Devanagari

> > > > > > > > > script and not malayalam.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Sufficient language skills and high astrological

> knowledge

> > > > > (basics)

> > > > > > > > > is the order that i prefer.Dashadhyayi kara came

> from a

> > > > > lineage

> > > > > > > > > which had sustained and enriched the rich heritage of

> > > Sanskrit

> > > > > > > > > literature.Astrology knowledge is not to mention.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Bhatolpala translations/interpretations cannot match

> the

> > > > > original

> > > > > > > > > Bhatolpala commentary.Thus i do not suspect

> Bhatolpala.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Respect

> > > > > > > > > Pradeep

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> <%40>

> > > <%40>

> > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > <%40>

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

> Chandrashekhar

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

> > > > > > > > > >

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

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > It is good you respect the commentators from an

> older

> > > era.

> > > > > So

> > > > > > > why

> > > > > > > > > doubt

> > > > > > > > > > Bhattotpala and Krishna Mishra?

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Most of the languages of India are derived from

> > > Sanskrit so

> > > > > > > Hindi

> > > > > > > > > > translations are also not lees in translating

> Sanskrit

> > > > > texts,

> > > > > > > than

> > > > > > > > > > Malayalam ones. And Hindi developed in the Land of

> > > Varaha

> > > > > Mihira

> > > > > > > > > Himself

> > > > > > > > > > and had not mixture of Tamil in it. So using your

> > > logic, the

> > > > > > > hindi

> > > > > > > > > > translations may be more near accuracy in

> translation of

> > > > > > > Sanskrit

> > > > > > > > > texts.

> > > > > > > > > > And then Varanasi has always been accepted as the

> > > highest

> > > > > seat

> > > > > > > of

> > > > > > > > > > Sanskrit learning through out India, so the

> translators

> > > from

> > > > > > > > > there

> > > > > > > > > > should be highly respected, is that not right?

> > > > > > > > > >

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

> > > > > > > > > >

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

> > > > > > > > > > >

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

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Swamsha can mean two things.Shri Sanjay Rath had

> > > asked me

> > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > same

> > > > > > > > > > > question an year back.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > 1)Swa -Amsha - Own amsha or belonging to him - ie

> > > Mars is

> > > > > in

> > > > > > > > > Aries

> > > > > > > > > > > amsha.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > 2)Swamsha - Similar to the vargas he has

> attained as

> > > in

> > > > > > > > > shadvarga of

> > > > > > > > > > > a planet or lagna.(In whose Rashi he is

> palced,having

> > > > > > > > > > > navamsha,drekkana etc)

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > In Karakamsha phala adhyaya - Sage is talking

> about

> > > > > swamsha

> > > > > > > as in

> > > > > > > > > > > point 2.There is no ambiguity as sage is not only

> > > talking

> > > > > > > about

> > > > > > > > > AK

> > > > > > > > > > > in his own amsha ,but results for having amsha in

> > > meshadi

> > > > > > > > > arashige

> > > > > > > > > > > (Rashis from Mesha onwards).

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Yes i agree with your point regarding recent

> > > commentators

> > > > > > > > > > > translators.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Dashadhyayi was written almost 800 years

> back.Thus it

> > > is

> > > > > not

> > > > > > > > > > > new.Moreover Dashadhyayi kara quotes giant

> scholars

> > > who

> > > > > had

> > > > > > > lived

> > > > > > > > > > > before him.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Even among scholars from later period

> (1800/1900),Late

> > > > > > > > > D.V.SubbuRao

> > > > > > > > > > > has similar views.Shri Sanjay Rath has similar

> views

> > > (for

> > > > > > > amshaka

> > > > > > > > > > > alone).

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Any local language scholar ,that i am reading

> uses

> > > amshas

> > > > > > > > > > > extensively.Sanskrit to malayalam translations

> are

> > > crystal

> > > > > > > clear

> > > > > > > > > as

> > > > > > > > > > > compared to sanskrit to english.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > As you may know - Malayalam is a comparatively

> new

> > > > > language

> > > > > > > and

> > > > > > > > > is

> > > > > > > > > > > mixture of Sanskrit and Tamil.Thus most of the

> > > sanskrit

> > > > > words

> > > > > > > are

> > > > > > > > > > > not new for us.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Regarding complexity ,you are true.That is why i

> would

> > > > > like to

> > > > > > > > > trust

> > > > > > > > > > > those who lived 800 years ago, as they had

> > > > > > > uncorrupted,knowledge

> > > > > > > > > > > handed down through Gurukula Sampradaaya.

> > > > > > > > > > >

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

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

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> <%40>

> > > <%40>

> > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > <%40>

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

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

> > > Chandrashekhar

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

> > > > > > > > > > > >

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

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > What is swamsha of a graha? Barring Sun and

> Moon

> > > every

> > > > > graha

> > > > > > > > > lords

> > > > > > > > > > > over

> > > > > > > > > > > > two rasis and by extension 18 navamshas at the

> > > least.

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > Nobody is disputing that navamsha is an amsha

> in

> > > another

> > > > > > > rasi

> > > > > > > > > and

> > > > > > > > > > > ruled

> > > > > > > > > > > > by some graha that need not be the one who

> rules the

> > > > > Rasi.

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > I do not know why you think that I feel that

> you do

> > > not

> > > > > > > > > understand

> > > > > > > > > > > Shad

> > > > > > > > > > > > is 6. I only pointed out why Varge used with

> > > Shadavarga

> > > > > is

> > > > > > > not

> > > > > > > > > > > plural,

> > > > > > > > > > > > as you were claiming.

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > I have no hesitation in accepting that the

> shlokas

> > > were

> > > > > > > written

> > > > > > > > > > > > thousands of year earlier and am rather am

> proud of

> > > the

> > > > > > > depth

> > > > > > > > > of

> > > > > > > > > > > > knowledge of the sages of those times. But

> many of

> > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > commentaries and

> > > > > > > > > > > > even other classics are of much more modern

> times.

> > > > > However

> > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > antiquity

> > > > > > > > > > > > or otherwise of an original text does not

> deduct

> > > from

> > > > > its

> > > > > > > > > quality.

> > > > > > > > > > > At

> > > > > > > > > > > > the same time one must understand that most of

> the

> > > > > ancient

> > > > > > > > > texts

> > > > > > > > > > > had

> > > > > > > > > > > > many commentaries for each of the text and

> that too

> > > by

> > > > > some

> > > > > > > > > > > learned

> > > > > > > > > > > > astrologers of the day. Had translation of the

> > > ancient

> > > > > texts

> > > > > > > > > and

> > > > > > > > > > > their

> > > > > > > > > > > > interpretation been so easy, there would not

> have

> > > been

> > > > > so

> > > > > > > many

> > > > > > > > > > > > commentator of each of the texts. So it may be

> > > assuming

> > > > > too

> > > > > > > > > much

> > > > > > > > > > > if we

> > > > > > > > > > > > say that only this commentator is right and

> > > everybody

> > > > > else

> > > > > > > is

> > > > > > > > > > > wrong.

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > Take care,

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

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > 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

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> <%40>

> > > <%40>

> > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > <%40>

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

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

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

> > > > > 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>

> > > <%40>

> > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > <%40>

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

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

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

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <%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>

> > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > <%40>

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

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

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

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <%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

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In

> <%40>

> > > <%40>

> > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > <%40>

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

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

> > > > > > > > > > > > > <%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

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In

> > >

> <%40> <%

> 40>

> > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > <%40>

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

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

> > > > > > > > > > > > > <%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

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

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

> -----

> > > ----

> > > > > ----

> > > > > > > ---

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

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

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

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

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

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No virus found in this

> > > incoming

> > > > > > > message.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Checked by AVG Free

> Edition.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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]

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

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

> -----

> > > ----

> > > > > ----

> > > > > > > ---

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

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

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

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

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

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No virus found in this

> incoming

> > > > > message.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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]

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> -----

> > > ----

> > > > > ----

> > > > > > > ---

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

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

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

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No virus found in this incoming

> > > message.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Version: 7.5.446 / Virus

> Database:

> > > > > > > 269.9.0/853 -

> > > > > > > > > > > Release

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Date:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 6/18/2007 3:02 PM

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

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

> have

> > > been

> > > > > > > > > removed]

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

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

> -----

> > > ----

> > > > > ----

> > > > > > > ---

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

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

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

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No virus found in this incoming

> message.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database:

> > > > > 269.9.6/865 -

> > > > > > > > > Release

> > > > > > > > > > > Date:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 6/24/2007 8:33 AM

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

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

> have been

> > > > > > > removed]

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

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

> -----

> > > ----

> > > > > ----

> > > > > > > ---

> > > > > > > > > -

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

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database:

> > > 269.9.14/882 -

> > > > > > > Release

> > > > > > > > > > > Date:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > 6/30/2007 3:10 PM

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

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

> been

> > > > > removed]

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

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

> -----

> > > ----

> > > > > ----

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

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database:

> 269.10.0/886 -

> > > > > Release

> > > > > > > > > Date:

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

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > >

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

> > > removed]

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

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

> -----

> > > ----

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

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.10.2/890 -

> > > Release

> > > > > > > Date:

> > > > > > > > > 7/7/2007 3:26 PM

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

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

> removed]

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

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

> -----

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

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Version: 7.5.476 / Virus Database: 269.10.4/898 -

> Release

> > > > > Date:

> > > > > > > 7/12/2007 4:08 PM

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >