Guest guest Posted July 12, 2007 Report Share Posted July 12, 2007 Dear all memebers Let us not take ''bits'' and ''pieces'' from Satish ji's mail like journalists and reach conclusions.He was talking about the factors which forms as real conlusions for Raoji.He said Rashi Chakra is the main consideration.No one disputes that Raoji uses aspects in Vargas.I have expressed that even if he just uses vargas alone(not chart) along with rashi chakra,the same results can be arrived at.So this aspect/bhava can be superflous.This opinion is no degradation at all. I will quote an example - There was a vicechancellor from Kerala University.He has many doctorates and is a learned scholar.He also got many degrees from numerous universities.One degree was from a university which was non-recognized.Everyone cried that Vice- chancellor does not have qualifications and he is fake.My question is is he fake? Not at all.He has more than enough qualifications.Thus we are only against superflous considerations. K.N.Raoji did not become K.N.Rao the giant figure in a single day.He too was young,he too would had pointed out discrepencies.We can find many such differences between Raoji and Dr.Raman.Do you want to say Raoji should not express his disagreement?. Regarding Charakaraka scheme,regarding karakamsha reading,regarding swamsha Shri Rath and shri PVR rao have expressed disgreement and have vehemently opposed Raoji.Will you call it a sin Bhaskar ji to debate with pramana? I havew beeen quoting pramanas from giant figures who lived 1000's of years back.What is the problem here.I don't understand.Is this discussion group for seeking truth or supporting own views at any cost.Please study the references given with care. Chandrashekhar ji opposes,Bhava chalita.Dr.Raman talks about Bhava chart in Cataclichm.Will you say Chandrashekhar ji is committing a sin? Will Raoji or Dr.Raman ever say that their views should not be countered?.The great Suryanarain Rao says,if sufficient pramanas and logic are provided,he will stand corrected. So no body has called Raoji a joke.Please don't try to take mileage out of false interpretations. Respect Pradeep Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 12, 2007 Report Share Posted July 12, 2007 Dear Pradeepji and all members, First of all, it should be very clear that I respect Pradeepji and all the other respected members of this Forum. Without such people, with whom shall one debate ? Without such people from where shall we have the gandh(smell)of the ancient writers and the shlokas they have written. So first we have to clear that this is not a personal battle, no personal inimicalness or enmity, for I think most of us do not know each other here personally, at least I do not know both Chandrasekharji and pradeepji, and neither had any scuffle with them in the past, and neither having now nor intend to in future. Even if i ever have, I normally forget before going to sleep and remove all ill will and do not allow to this to nurture in my heart for more than a single Porking day. POkay now coming to sin part. I feel that its a sin to override the good astrologers we know of, like KN Rao, BV Raman and Santhanam. Its a sin to doubt their words, verbal or written. They can be wrong at times being human, but not at all times, and neither can the three all of them be wrong. And it is again a sin to force our opinion on others and just mantain that I am right and You are wrong. That does not happen and should not happen too. The more better option would be to stick to own position and allow the others to remain with theirs, respectfully, without trying to convert their religion (Astrological approach) I have already quoted them using navamsha and aspects alongwith the books name and page number. What more proof is needed ? I can further provide 10 examples each from the above authors wherein the same proof can stand in the limelight and strike with force. But is there any sense in unnecessary waste of time, when we dont repsect the authors views, then all such effort is futile. I am nowhere saying that You are wrong entirely, in fact none of us can be, because as said in the past, we have to change our views, approach of checking the charts, with changing personalities, various charts, different types of queries and people rom different strata of Life. And also there have to be 2 approaches always for a) Postmarten Charts b) for Charts where in one has to predict for future. In a) One would look at all possible approaches to connect the incident, characteristic,event and timings with the various charts and give a comprehensive analysis. In b) One will be more cautious and his approach would change. Because here he does not know what is going to happen very clearly. so cannot just apply every rule in the book to connect- because he does not know with what he has to connect ??? here we are searching for the subject or object of connection- whereas in the prior case, the object/event is already given. all we have to do is connect from all approaches. Therefore flexibilty I repeat is always going to help. No hardfast rule of the book works in astrology. Since the great personalities have been proved to be wrong, the Rishis shlokas presented also do not seem to bear testimony for the point of contention, then please guide, how does one prove that he is right ? For if one is not ready to eat a Rosogolla, how can one force it down his throat ? So allow us to eat our Rasogolla, and continue eating with your rajabhoga. But do not say that Rasogolla eating is not right while rajabhoga eating is the right thing. From your side unfortunately no Pramana has been given to prove that- a) navamsha Chart is not important. b) aspects dont hold good in navamsha. c) Karakamsha has to be seen from Rashi. If one quotes that Karakamsha is seen from Rashi, and Shri KN rao is doing this, and asking us to believe this, then why does he not believe the same KN rao., when we gave him an example of aspects in the Divisional Chart (Vimsamsa). Why do they not believe about the importance of navamsha Chart when the same KN Rao has always given this Chart in all his books while explaining his examples. Why believeing one part of KN rao and not the other part ? Why this discrepancy ? Please answer. This is Kalidasa asking you. But all in good jyotish discussion and arguments- (Vivaad)- nothing personal. regards, Bhaskar. , " vijayadas_pradeep " <vijayadas_pradeep wrote: > > Dear all memebers > > Let us not take ''bits'' and ''pieces'' from Satish ji's mail like > journalists and reach conclusions.He was talking about the factors > which forms as real conlusions for Raoji.He said Rashi Chakra is the > main consideration.No one disputes that Raoji uses aspects in > Vargas.I have expressed that even if he just uses vargas alone(not > chart) along with rashi chakra,the same results can be arrived at.So > this aspect/bhava can be superflous.This opinion is no degradation at > all. > > I will quote an example - There was a vicechancellor from Kerala > University.He has many doctorates and is a learned scholar.He also > got many degrees from numerous universities.One degree was from a > university which was non-recognized.Everyone cried that Vice- > chancellor does not have qualifications and he is fake.My question is > is he fake? Not at all.He has more than enough qualifications.Thus we > are only against superflous considerations. > > K.N.Raoji did not become K.N.Rao the giant figure in a single day.He > too was young,he too would had pointed out discrepencies.We can find > many such differences between Raoji and Dr.Raman.Do you want to say > Raoji should not express his disagreement?. > > Regarding Charakaraka scheme,regarding karakamsha reading,regarding > swamsha Shri Rath and shri PVR rao have expressed disgreement and > have vehemently opposed Raoji.Will you call it a sin Bhaskar ji to > debate with pramana? > > I havew beeen quoting pramanas from giant figures who lived 1000's of > years back.What is the problem here.I don't understand.Is this > discussion group for seeking truth or supporting own views at any > cost.Please study the references given with care. > > Chandrashekhar ji opposes,Bhava chalita.Dr.Raman talks about Bhava > chart in Cataclichm.Will you say Chandrashekhar ji is committing a > sin? > > Will Raoji or Dr.Raman ever say that their views should not be > countered?.The great Suryanarain Rao says,if sufficient pramanas and > logic are provided,he will stand corrected. > > So no body has called Raoji a joke.Please don't try to take mileage > out of false interpretations. > > Respect > Pradeep > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 12, 2007 Report Share Posted July 12, 2007 Dear Bhaskar ji >>From your side unfortunately no Pramana has been given to prove >>that- > > a) navamsha Chart is not important. > b) aspects dont hold good in navamsha. > c) Karakamsha has to be seen from Rashi a)Navamsha is very very important.Can you show a single reference where navamsha CHART is mentioned. b)Rules set by Parashara.See the explanation given by Late Santhanam in BPHS. c)Meshadi RASHIGE swamshe.PapARKSHE Guruna drishte.Shri sanjay Rath has agreed that amshaka is to be taken from Rashi.BPHS karakamsha phala adhyaya uses amshaka and amsha for same purpose. Laganshadvargake shloka can only be interpreted if they are seen from rashi. Thus it is quite evident. Now i cannot make you or others decide.I should never do.My inetntion is to present in front of astrological community the various angles,so that they can arrive at their own conclusions. Regds Pradeep , " Bhaskar " <bhaskar_jyotish wrote: > > Dear Pradeepji and all members, > > First of all, it should be very clear that > I respect Pradeepji and all the other respected > members of this Forum. Without such people, with > whom shall one debate ? > Without such people from where shall we have the > gandh(smell)of the ancient writers and the shlokas > they have written. So first we have to clear that > this is not a personal battle, no personal inimicalness > or enmity, for I think most of us do not > know each other here personally, at least > I do not know both Chandrasekharji and pradeepji, > and neither had any scuffle > with them in the past, and neither having now > nor intend to in future. Even if i ever have, > I normally forget before going to sleep and remove > all ill will and do not allow to > this to nurture in my heart for more than a single > Porking day. > > POkay now coming to sin part. I feel that its a > sin to override the good astrologers we know of, > like KN Rao, BV Raman and Santhanam. Its a sin to > doubt their words, verbal or written. > They can be wrong at times being human, but not > at all times, and neither can the three all of > them be wrong. > > And it is again a sin to force our opinion > on others and just mantain that I > am right and You are wrong. That does not happen > and should not happen too. The more better option > would be to stick to own position and allow > the others to remain with theirs, respectfully, > without trying to convert their religion > (Astrological approach) > > I have already quoted them using navamsha and aspects > alongwith the books name and page number. What more proof > is needed ? I can further provide 10 examples each from the > above authors wherein the same proof can stand in the limelight > and strike with force. But is there any sense in unnecessary > waste of time, when we dont repsect the authors views, > then all such effort is futile. > > I am nowhere saying that You are wrong entirely, > in fact none of us can be, because as said in the past, > we have to change our views, approach of checking the charts, > with changing personalities, various charts, different > types of queries and people rom different strata of Life. > > And also there have to be 2 approaches always for > > a) Postmarten Charts > b) for Charts where in one has to predict for future. > > In a) One would look at all possible approaches to connect > the incident, characteristic,event and timings with > the various charts and give a comprehensive analysis. > > In b) One will be more cautious and his approach would > change. Because here he does not know what is going to > happen very clearly. so cannot just apply every rule > in the book to connect- because he does not know > with what he has to connect ??? here we are searching for > the subject or object of connection- > whereas in the prior case, the object/event is already given. > all we have to do is connect from all approaches. > > Therefore flexibilty I repeat is always going to help. > No hardfast rule of the book works in astrology. > > Since the great personalities have been proved to be > wrong, the Rishis shlokas presented also do not seem to > bear testimony for the point of > contention, then please guide, how does one prove > that he is right ? For if one > is not ready to eat a Rosogolla, how can one force it > down his throat ? > > So allow us to eat our Rasogolla, and continue eating with > your rajabhoga. But do not say that Rasogolla eating is not > right while rajabhoga eating is the right thing. > > From your side unfortunately no Pramana has been > given to prove that- > > a) navamsha Chart is not important. > b) aspects dont hold good in navamsha. > c) Karakamsha has to be seen from Rashi. > > If one quotes that Karakamsha is seen from Rashi, > and Shri KN rao is doing this, and asking us to > believe this, then why does > he not believe the same KN rao., > when we gave him an example of aspects in the > Divisional Chart (Vimsamsa). > > Why do they not believe about the importance of > navamsha Chart when the same KN Rao has always given this > Chart in all his books while explaining his examples. > > Why believeing one part of KN rao and not the other > part ? Why this discrepancy ? > > Please answer. This is Kalidasa asking you. > > But all in good jyotish discussion and arguments- > (Vivaad)- nothing personal. > > regards, > Bhaskar. > > > > , " vijayadas_pradeep " > <vijayadas_pradeep@> wrote: > > > > Dear all memebers > > > > Let us not take ''bits'' and ''pieces'' from Satish ji's mail like > > journalists and reach conclusions.He was talking about the factors > > which forms as real conlusions for Raoji.He said Rashi Chakra is the > > main consideration.No one disputes that Raoji uses aspects in > > Vargas.I have expressed that even if he just uses vargas alone (not > > chart) along with rashi chakra,the same results can be arrived at.So > > this aspect/bhava can be superflous.This opinion is no degradation at > > all. > > > > I will quote an example - There was a vicechancellor from Kerala > > University.He has many doctorates and is a learned scholar.He also > > got many degrees from numerous universities.One degree was from a > > university which was non-recognized.Everyone cried that Vice- > > chancellor does not have qualifications and he is fake.My question is > > is he fake? Not at all.He has more than enough qualifications.Thus we > > are only against superflous considerations. > > > > K.N.Raoji did not become K.N.Rao the giant figure in a single day.He > > too was young,he too would had pointed out discrepencies.We can find > > many such differences between Raoji and Dr.Raman.Do you want to say > > Raoji should not express his disagreement?. > > > > Regarding Charakaraka scheme,regarding karakamsha reading,regarding > > swamsha Shri Rath and shri PVR rao have expressed disgreement and > > have vehemently opposed Raoji.Will you call it a sin Bhaskar ji to > > debate with pramana? > > > > I havew beeen quoting pramanas from giant figures who lived 1000's of > > years back.What is the problem here.I don't understand.Is this > > discussion group for seeking truth or supporting own views at any > > cost.Please study the references given with care. > > > > Chandrashekhar ji opposes,Bhava chalita.Dr.Raman talks about Bhava > > chart in Cataclichm.Will you say Chandrashekhar ji is committing a > > sin? > > > > Will Raoji or Dr.Raman ever say that their views should not be > > countered?.The great Suryanarain Rao says,if sufficient pramanas and > > logic are provided,he will stand corrected. > > > > So no body has called Raoji a joke.Please don't try to take mileage > > out of false interpretations. > > > > Respect > > Pradeep > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 12, 2007 Report Share Posted July 12, 2007 Dear Pradeepji, We are simply continuing the thread on most silly issues, and nothing much to be seen contributed from your side, except the same tunes. // Navamsha is very very important.Can you show a single reference where navamsha CHART is mentioned.// What does one call that diagrammatical representation of planets in Rasi and Navamsha.. that representation which we see in all books of the great writers in diagram form, if not known as Rasi (Chart) or navamsha (Chart) then what should one call it ? // )Rules set by Parashara.See the explanation given by Late Santhanam in BPHS. // What rules ? // )Meshadi RASHIGE swamshe.PapARKSHE Guruna drishte.Shri sanjay Rath has agreed that amshaka is to be taken from Rashi.BPHS karakamsha phala adhyaya uses amshaka and amsha for same purpose. // Who is talking of above ? and what is the above ? i dont understand sanskrit . Please talk in English or translate the above. Who is talking of amsa, I am not disputing at all on amsa and Rasi sambandh ? when did I ? And who is Sanjay rathji, if you fail to recognise BV Raman, KN Rao and santhanam, why should I overrate the names and recognise those ,You give and quote ? //Laganshadvargake shloka can only be interpreted if they are seen from rashi.// What and who is talking of laganshadvargake ? And who is talking of the shloka ? At least i did not. I have heard this term for the first time in my Life. And if I start quoting shlokas, then mark my words., all will have to search for shelter. ample Proofs have been given to You, but You do not wish to accept them , and you wish us to accept proof where none has been given uptil date. regards, Bhaskar. , " vijayadas_pradeep " <vijayadas_pradeep wrote: > > Dear Bhaskar ji > > >>From your side unfortunately no Pramana has been given to prove > >>that- > > > > a) navamsha Chart is not important. > > b) aspects dont hold good in navamsha. > > c) Karakamsha has to be seen from Rashi > > > a)Navamsha is very very important.Can you show a single reference > where navamsha CHART is mentioned. > > b)Rules set by Parashara.See the explanation given by Late Santhanam > in BPHS. > > c)Meshadi RASHIGE swamshe.PapARKSHE Guruna drishte.Shri sanjay Rath > has agreed that amshaka is to be taken from Rashi.BPHS karakamsha > phala adhyaya uses amshaka and amsha for same purpose. > > Laganshadvargake shloka can only be interpreted if they are seen > from rashi. > > Thus it is quite evident. > > Now i cannot make you or others decide.I should never do.My > inetntion is to present in front of astrological community the > various angles,so that they can arrive at their own conclusions. > > Regds > Pradeep > > > , " Bhaskar " <bhaskar_jyotish@> wrote: > > > > Dear Pradeepji and all members, > > > > First of all, it should be very clear that > > I respect Pradeepji and all the other respected > > members of this Forum. Without such people, with > > whom shall one debate ? > > Without such people from where shall we have the > > gandh(smell)of the ancient writers and the shlokas > > they have written. So first we have to clear that > > this is not a personal battle, no personal inimicalness > > or enmity, for I think most of us do not > > know each other here personally, at least > > I do not know both Chandrasekharji and pradeepji, > > and neither had any scuffle > > with them in the past, and neither having now > > nor intend to in future. Even if i ever have, > > I normally forget before going to sleep and remove > > all ill will and do not allow to > > this to nurture in my heart for more than a single > > Porking day. > > > > POkay now coming to sin part. I feel that its a > > sin to override the good astrologers we know of, > > like KN Rao, BV Raman and Santhanam. Its a sin to > > doubt their words, verbal or written. > > They can be wrong at times being human, but not > > at all times, and neither can the three all of > > them be wrong. > > > > And it is again a sin to force our opinion > > on others and just mantain that I > > am right and You are wrong. That does not happen > > and should not happen too. The more better option > > would be to stick to own position and allow > > the others to remain with theirs, respectfully, > > without trying to convert their religion > > (Astrological approach) > > > > I have already quoted them using navamsha and aspects > > alongwith the books name and page number. What more proof > > is needed ? I can further provide 10 examples each from the > > above authors wherein the same proof can stand in the limelight > > and strike with force. But is there any sense in unnecessary > > waste of time, when we dont repsect the authors views, > > then all such effort is futile. > > > > I am nowhere saying that You are wrong entirely, > > in fact none of us can be, because as said in the past, > > we have to change our views, approach of checking the charts, > > with changing personalities, various charts, different > > types of queries and people rom different strata of Life. > > > > And also there have to be 2 approaches always for > > > > a) Postmarten Charts > > b) for Charts where in one has to predict for future. > > > > In a) One would look at all possible approaches to connect > > the incident, characteristic,event and timings with > > the various charts and give a comprehensive analysis. > > > > In b) One will be more cautious and his approach would > > change. Because here he does not know what is going to > > happen very clearly. so cannot just apply every rule > > in the book to connect- because he does not know > > with what he has to connect ??? here we are searching for > > the subject or object of connection- > > whereas in the prior case, the object/event is already given. > > all we have to do is connect from all approaches. > > > > Therefore flexibilty I repeat is always going to help. > > No hardfast rule of the book works in astrology. > > > > Since the great personalities have been proved to be > > wrong, the Rishis shlokas presented also do not seem to > > bear testimony for the point of > > contention, then please guide, how does one prove > > that he is right ? For if one > > is not ready to eat a Rosogolla, how can one force it > > down his throat ? > > > > So allow us to eat our Rasogolla, and continue eating with > > your rajabhoga. But do not say that Rasogolla eating is not > > right while rajabhoga eating is the right thing. > > > > From your side unfortunately no Pramana has been > > given to prove that- > > > > a) navamsha Chart is not important. > > b) aspects dont hold good in navamsha. > > c) Karakamsha has to be seen from Rashi. > > > > If one quotes that Karakamsha is seen from Rashi, > > and Shri KN rao is doing this, and asking us to > > believe this, then why does > > he not believe the same KN rao., > > when we gave him an example of aspects in the > > Divisional Chart (Vimsamsa). > > > > Why do they not believe about the importance of > > navamsha Chart when the same KN Rao has always given this > > Chart in all his books while explaining his examples. > > > > Why believeing one part of KN rao and not the other > > part ? Why this discrepancy ? > > > > Please answer. This is Kalidasa asking you. > > > > But all in good jyotish discussion and arguments- > > (Vivaad)- nothing personal. > > > > regards, > > Bhaskar. > > > > > > > > , " vijayadas_pradeep " > > <vijayadas_pradeep@> wrote: > > > > > > Dear all memebers > > > > > > Let us not take ''bits'' and ''pieces'' from Satish ji's mail > like > > > journalists and reach conclusions.He was talking about the > factors > > > which forms as real conlusions for Raoji.He said Rashi Chakra is > the > > > main consideration.No one disputes that Raoji uses aspects in > > > Vargas.I have expressed that even if he just uses vargas alone > (not > > > chart) along with rashi chakra,the same results can be arrived > at.So > > > this aspect/bhava can be superflous.This opinion is no > degradation at > > > all. > > > > > > I will quote an example - There was a vicechancellor from Kerala > > > University.He has many doctorates and is a learned scholar.He > also > > > got many degrees from numerous universities.One degree was from > a > > > university which was non-recognized.Everyone cried that Vice- > > > chancellor does not have qualifications and he is fake.My > question is > > > is he fake? Not at all.He has more than enough > qualifications.Thus we > > > are only against superflous considerations. > > > > > > K.N.Raoji did not become K.N.Rao the giant figure in a single > day.He > > > too was young,he too would had pointed out discrepencies.We can > find > > > many such differences between Raoji and Dr.Raman.Do you want to > say > > > Raoji should not express his disagreement?. > > > > > > Regarding Charakaraka scheme,regarding karakamsha > reading,regarding > > > swamsha Shri Rath and shri PVR rao have expressed disgreement > and > > > have vehemently opposed Raoji.Will you call it a sin Bhaskar ji > to > > > debate with pramana? > > > > > > I havew beeen quoting pramanas from giant figures who lived > 1000's of > > > years back.What is the problem here.I don't understand.Is this > > > discussion group for seeking truth or supporting own views at > any > > > cost.Please study the references given with care. > > > > > > Chandrashekhar ji opposes,Bhava chalita.Dr.Raman talks about > Bhava > > > chart in Cataclichm.Will you say Chandrashekhar ji is committing > a > > > sin? > > > > > > Will Raoji or Dr.Raman ever say that their views should not be > > > countered?.The great Suryanarain Rao says,if sufficient pramanas > and > > > logic are provided,he will stand corrected. > > > > > > So no body has called Raoji a joke.Please don't try to take > mileage > > > out of false interpretations. > > > > > > Respect > > > Pradeep > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 12, 2007 Report Share Posted July 12, 2007 Dear Bhaskar ji Thank you very much. Regds Pradeep , " Bhaskar " <bhaskar_jyotish wrote: > > Dear Pradeepji, > > We are simply continuing the thread on most silly > issues, and nothing much to be seen contributed > from your side, except the same tunes. > > // Navamsha is very very important.Can you show a single reference > where navamsha CHART is mentioned.// > > What does one call that diagrammatical representation > of planets in Rasi and Navamsha.. > that representation which we see in all books of > the great writers in diagram form, if not known as > Rasi (Chart) or navamsha (Chart) > then what should one call it ? > > // )Rules set by Parashara.See the explanation given > by Late Santhanam in BPHS. // > > What rules ? > > // )Meshadi RASHIGE swamshe.PapARKSHE Guruna drishte.Shri sanjay Rath > has agreed that amshaka is to be taken from Rashi.BPHS karakamsha > phala adhyaya uses amshaka and amsha for same purpose. // > > Who is talking of above ? and what is the above ? > i dont understand sanskrit . Please talk in English or translate the > above. > Who is talking of amsa, I am not disputing at all on > amsa and Rasi sambandh ? when did I ? And who is Sanjay rathji, if you > fail to recognise BV Raman, KN Rao and santhanam, why should I > overrate the names and recognise those ,You give and quote ? > > //Laganshadvargake shloka can only be interpreted if they are seen > from rashi.// > > What and who is talking of laganshadvargake ? And who is talking > of the shloka ? At least i did not. I have heard this term for the > first time in my Life. And if I start quoting shlokas, then mark my > words., > all will have to search for shelter. > > ample Proofs have been given to You, but You > do not wish to accept them , and you wish us > to accept proof where none has been given > uptil date. > > regards, > Bhaskar. > , " vijayadas_pradeep " > <vijayadas_pradeep@> wrote: > > > > Dear Bhaskar ji > > > > >>From your side unfortunately no Pramana has been given to prove > > >>that- > > > > > > a) navamsha Chart is not important. > > > b) aspects dont hold good in navamsha. > > > c) Karakamsha has to be seen from Rashi > > > > > > a)Navamsha is very very important.Can you show a single reference > > where navamsha CHART is mentioned. > > > > b)Rules set by Parashara.See the explanation given by Late Santhanam > > in BPHS. > > > > c)Meshadi RASHIGE swamshe.PapARKSHE Guruna drishte.Shri sanjay Rath > > has agreed that amshaka is to be taken from Rashi.BPHS karakamsha > > phala adhyaya uses amshaka and amsha for same purpose. > > > > Laganshadvargake shloka can only be interpreted if they are seen > > from rashi. > > > > Thus it is quite evident. > > > > Now i cannot make you or others decide.I should never do.My > > inetntion is to present in front of astrological community the > > various angles,so that they can arrive at their own conclusions. > > > > Regds > > Pradeep > > > > > > , " Bhaskar " <bhaskar_jyotish@> wrote: > > > > > > Dear Pradeepji and all members, > > > > > > First of all, it should be very clear that > > > I respect Pradeepji and all the other respected > > > members of this Forum. Without such people, with > > > whom shall one debate ? > > > Without such people from where shall we have the > > > gandh(smell)of the ancient writers and the shlokas > > > they have written. So first we have to clear that > > > this is not a personal battle, no personal inimicalness > > > or enmity, for I think most of us do not > > > know each other here personally, at least > > > I do not know both Chandrasekharji and pradeepji, > > > and neither had any scuffle > > > with them in the past, and neither having now > > > nor intend to in future. Even if i ever have, > > > I normally forget before going to sleep and remove > > > all ill will and do not allow to > > > this to nurture in my heart for more than a single > > > Porking day. > > > > > > POkay now coming to sin part. I feel that its a > > > sin to override the good astrologers we know of, > > > like KN Rao, BV Raman and Santhanam. Its a sin to > > > doubt their words, verbal or written. > > > They can be wrong at times being human, but not > > > at all times, and neither can the three all of > > > them be wrong. > > > > > > And it is again a sin to force our opinion > > > on others and just mantain that I > > > am right and You are wrong. That does not happen > > > and should not happen too. The more better option > > > would be to stick to own position and allow > > > the others to remain with theirs, respectfully, > > > without trying to convert their religion > > > (Astrological approach) > > > > > > I have already quoted them using navamsha and aspects > > > alongwith the books name and page number. What more proof > > > is needed ? I can further provide 10 examples each from the > > > above authors wherein the same proof can stand in the limelight > > > and strike with force. But is there any sense in unnecessary > > > waste of time, when we dont repsect the authors views, > > > then all such effort is futile. > > > > > > I am nowhere saying that You are wrong entirely, > > > in fact none of us can be, because as said in the past, > > > we have to change our views, approach of checking the charts, > > > with changing personalities, various charts, different > > > types of queries and people rom different strata of Life. > > > > > > And also there have to be 2 approaches always for > > > > > > a) Postmarten Charts > > > b) for Charts where in one has to predict for future. > > > > > > In a) One would look at all possible approaches to connect > > > the incident, characteristic,event and timings with > > > the various charts and give a comprehensive analysis. > > > > > > In b) One will be more cautious and his approach would > > > change. Because here he does not know what is going to > > > happen very clearly. so cannot just apply every rule > > > in the book to connect- because he does not know > > > with what he has to connect ??? here we are searching for > > > the subject or object of connection- > > > whereas in the prior case, the object/event is already given. > > > all we have to do is connect from all approaches. > > > > > > Therefore flexibilty I repeat is always going to help. > > > No hardfast rule of the book works in astrology. > > > > > > Since the great personalities have been proved to be > > > wrong, the Rishis shlokas presented also do not seem to > > > bear testimony for the point of > > > contention, then please guide, how does one prove > > > that he is right ? For if one > > > is not ready to eat a Rosogolla, how can one force it > > > down his throat ? > > > > > > So allow us to eat our Rasogolla, and continue eating with > > > your rajabhoga. But do not say that Rasogolla eating is not > > > right while rajabhoga eating is the right thing. > > > > > > From your side unfortunately no Pramana has been > > > given to prove that- > > > > > > a) navamsha Chart is not important. > > > b) aspects dont hold good in navamsha. > > > c) Karakamsha has to be seen from Rashi. > > > > > > If one quotes that Karakamsha is seen from Rashi, > > > and Shri KN rao is doing this, and asking us to > > > believe this, then why does > > > he not believe the same KN rao., > > > when we gave him an example of aspects in the > > > Divisional Chart (Vimsamsa). > > > > > > Why do they not believe about the importance of > > > navamsha Chart when the same KN Rao has always given this > > > Chart in all his books while explaining his examples. > > > > > > Why believeing one part of KN rao and not the other > > > part ? Why this discrepancy ? > > > > > > Please answer. This is Kalidasa asking you. > > > > > > But all in good jyotish discussion and arguments- > > > (Vivaad)- nothing personal. > > > > > > regards, > > > Bhaskar. > > > > > > > > > > > > , " vijayadas_pradeep " > > > <vijayadas_pradeep@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Dear all memebers > > > > > > > > Let us not take ''bits'' and ''pieces'' from Satish ji's mail > > like > > > > journalists and reach conclusions.He was talking about the > > factors > > > > which forms as real conlusions for Raoji.He said Rashi Chakra is > > the > > > > main consideration.No one disputes that Raoji uses aspects in > > > > Vargas.I have expressed that even if he just uses vargas alone > > (not > > > > chart) along with rashi chakra,the same results can be arrived > > at.So > > > > this aspect/bhava can be superflous.This opinion is no > > degradation at > > > > all. > > > > > > > > I will quote an example - There was a vicechancellor from Kerala > > > > University.He has many doctorates and is a learned scholar.He > > also > > > > got many degrees from numerous universities.One degree was from > > a > > > > university which was non-recognized.Everyone cried that Vice- > > > > chancellor does not have qualifications and he is fake.My > > question is > > > > is he fake? Not at all.He has more than enough > > qualifications.Thus we > > > > are only against superflous considerations. > > > > > > > > K.N.Raoji did not become K.N.Rao the giant figure in a single > > day.He > > > > too was young,he too would had pointed out discrepencies.We can > > find > > > > many such differences between Raoji and Dr.Raman.Do you want to > > say > > > > Raoji should not express his disagreement?. > > > > > > > > Regarding Charakaraka scheme,regarding karakamsha > > reading,regarding > > > > swamsha Shri Rath and shri PVR rao have expressed disgreement > > and > > > > have vehemently opposed Raoji.Will you call it a sin Bhaskar ji > > to > > > > debate with pramana? > > > > > > > > I havew beeen quoting pramanas from giant figures who lived > > 1000's of > > > > years back.What is the problem here.I don't understand.Is this > > > > discussion group for seeking truth or supporting own views at > > any > > > > cost.Please study the references given with care. > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar ji opposes,Bhava chalita.Dr.Raman talks about > > Bhava > > > > chart in Cataclichm.Will you say Chandrashekhar ji is committing > > a > > > > sin? > > > > > > > > Will Raoji or Dr.Raman ever say that their views should not be > > > > countered?.The great Suryanarain Rao says,if sufficient pramanas > > and > > > > logic are provided,he will stand corrected. > > > > > > > > So no body has called Raoji a joke.Please don't try to take > > mileage > > > > out of false interpretations. > > > > > > > > Respect > > > > Pradeep > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.