Not only in BPHS but in Devakeralam as well

[Guest guest]

Dear Respected members

 

This message is for all those who have an open mind towards

discussions.If you have already made up your mind kindly ignore this

mail.

 

Late Sri R. Santhanam states in his book Deva Keralam that " the

aspect as a rule should be seen in rashi chart only, not in navamsha

and other charts, for aspects emanate only by longitudinal

distances " .

 

Thus we can see that,in BPHS as well as Devakeralam he has expressed

his views.

 

In Lagna shadvargake shloka,concerns did arise as he considerd them

as a chart - while sage is talking about ''Lagnas shadvargas'' which

does not need a chart.

 

I will share more case studies.Theory is part is enough and i hope

we willnot say Late Santhanam was not clear regarding aspects.

 

Regds

Pradeep

[Guest guest]

Dear Pradeep ji,

 

It is not the question of fixed mind or flexible mind. Mind accepts -

what he reads and hears.

 

You have selectively referred Late Santhanam. First you were saying

there is no Navamsa chart; then Now you are referring his point of

view as navamsa chart and other D charts.

 

Also - Please read all three volumes and you will see it transparently

- that, Late Santhanam has provided cominations in D9 charts, which

are not possible without aspects.

 

Also - I quoted you from his own articles in TOA issues. How can we

believe them to be contrary to his interpretation model.

 

Of course - it is your choice to reject those articles and quoted

conversation; but it is not correct to misquote him selectively.

 

At some stage - you say there is no D charts, slowly over the threads

- now you are saying there are D charts (quoting Late Santhanam) - but

do not have aspects. What is your clear perspective?

 

regards / Prafulla

, " vijayadas_pradeep "

<vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

>

> Dear Respected members

>

> This message is for all those who have an open mind towards

> discussions.If you have already made up your mind kindly ignore this

> mail.

>

> Late Sri R. Santhanam states in his book Deva Keralam that " the

> aspect as a rule should be seen in rashi chart only, not in navamsha

> and other charts, for aspects emanate only by longitudinal

> distances " .

>

> Thus we can see that,in BPHS as well as Devakeralam he has expressed

> his views.

>

> In Lagna shadvargake shloka,concerns did arise as he considerd them

> as a chart - while sage is talking about ''Lagnas shadvargas'' which

> does not need a chart.

>

> I will share more case studies.Theory is part is enough and i hope

> we willnot say Late Santhanam was not clear regarding aspects.

>

> Regds

> Pradeep

>

[Guest guest]

Dear Prafulla ji

 

You are still not getting the point.

 

1)K.N.Raoji considers aspects as well as bhavas - But says

Karakamsha has to be seen from Rashi.Shri Sanjay Rath says,

 

2)Late Santhanam considers 7th from ,10th from etc from navamsha

lagna in navamsha arrangement.But he says aspects cannot be seen

there.Shri Bhaskar and you are missing this point and assuming those

as aspects.He is clear regarding aspects.Pls try to understand why

aspects are not possible.For this you have to try for yourslef,how

navamsha is done.If you need any help in this regard ,i can take a

chart and explain.But onyl if you want.

 

For the same reason(considering them as a chart) ,Late Santhanam was

unable to interpret shadvargake shloka.Sage is talking only about

Lagnas shadvargas and not charts.

 

In reality they all happen within Rashi chakra.Some recognize

this ,but only in certain instances.

 

As per the explanation from great grandfathers,it is very clear.If i

follow their views i can understand each and every shloka in BPHS

without any concern.It is uptto you to choose your path.

 

Regds

Pradeep

 

 

, " Prafulla Gang " <jyotish

wrote:

>

> Dear Pradeep ji,

>

> It is not the question of fixed mind or flexible mind. Mind

accepts -

> what he reads and hears.

>

> You have selectively referred Late Santhanam. First you were saying

> there is no Navamsa chart; then Now you are referring his point of

> view as navamsa chart and other D charts.

>

> Also - Please read all three volumes and you will see it

transparently

> - that, Late Santhanam has provided cominations in D9 charts, which

> are not possible without aspects.

>

> Also - I quoted you from his own articles in TOA issues. How can we

> believe them to be contrary to his interpretation model.

>

> Of course - it is your choice to reject those articles and quoted

> conversation; but it is not correct to misquote him selectively.

>

> At some stage - you say there is no D charts, slowly over the

threads

> - now you are saying there are D charts (quoting Late Santhanam) -

but

> do not have aspects. What is your clear perspective?

>

> regards / Prafulla

> , " vijayadas_pradeep "

> <vijayadas_pradeep@> wrote:

> >

> > Dear Respected members

> >

> > This message is for all those who have an open mind towards

> > discussions.If you have already made up your mind kindly ignore

this

> > mail.

> >

> > Late Sri R. Santhanam states in his book Deva Keralam that " the

> > aspect as a rule should be seen in rashi chart only, not in

navamsha

> > and other charts, for aspects emanate only by longitudinal

> > distances " .

> >

> > Thus we can see that,in BPHS as well as Devakeralam he has

expressed

> > his views.

> >

> > In Lagna shadvargake shloka,concerns did arise as he considerd

them

> > as a chart - while sage is talking about ''Lagnas shadvargas''

which

> > does not need a chart.

> >

> > I will share more case studies.Theory is part is enough and i

hope

> > we willnot say Late Santhanam was not clear regarding aspects.

> >

> > Regds

> > Pradeep

> >

>

[Guest guest]

Dear Pradeep ji

 

Just a repetition:

 

I have referred example - where he mentioned guru / venus in mutual

aspect in personal conversation (in my own chart). Also - I request

you to refer to his articles in TOA.

 

I did not offer any comment on his competence of judging specific

shloka mentioned by you; or at his BPHS.

 

My comment was purely on my personal observation of spending not less

than 100 man hours with him in person; and on his articles in TOA.

 

I have my opinion on how Late Santhanam ji referred D 9 chart - based

upon - what I heard and observed with him in personal dicussions -

and I always give weight to the interpretation model than the books.

 

You have choice to think on what I stated or to reject it..I have

little issues in it.

 

regards / Prafulla

 

 

, " vijayadas_pradeep "

<vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

>

> Dear Prafulla ji

>

> You are still not getting the point.

>

> 1)K.N.Raoji considers aspects as well as bhavas - But says

> Karakamsha has to be seen from Rashi.Shri Sanjay Rath says,

>

> 2)Late Santhanam considers 7th from ,10th from etc from navamsha

> lagna in navamsha arrangement.But he says aspects cannot be seen

> there.Shri Bhaskar and you are missing this point and assuming those

> as aspects.He is clear regarding aspects.Pls try to understand why

> aspects are not possible.For this you have to try for yourslef,how

> navamsha is done.If you need any help in this regard ,i can take a

> chart and explain.But onyl if you want.

>

> For the same reason(considering them as a chart) ,Late Santhanam was

> unable to interpret shadvargake shloka.Sage is talking only about

> Lagnas shadvargas and not charts.

>

> In reality they all happen within Rashi chakra.Some recognize

> this ,but only in certain instances.

>

> As per the explanation from great grandfathers,it is very clear.If i

> follow their views i can understand each and every shloka in BPHS

> without any concern.It is uptto you to choose your path.

>

> Regds

> Pradeep

>

>

> , " Prafulla Gang " <jyotish@>

> wrote:

> >

> > Dear Pradeep ji,

> >

> > It is not the question of fixed mind or flexible mind. Mind

> accepts -

> > what he reads and hears.

> >

> > You have selectively referred Late Santhanam. First you were saying

> > there is no Navamsa chart; then Now you are referring his point of

> > view as navamsa chart and other D charts.

> >

> > Also - Please read all three volumes and you will see it

> transparently

> > - that, Late Santhanam has provided cominations in D9 charts, which

> > are not possible without aspects.

> >

> > Also - I quoted you from his own articles in TOA issues. How can we

> > believe them to be contrary to his interpretation model.

> >

> > Of course - it is your choice to reject those articles and quoted

> > conversation; but it is not correct to misquote him selectively.

> >

> > At some stage - you say there is no D charts, slowly over the

> threads

> > - now you are saying there are D charts (quoting Late Santhanam) -

> but

> > do not have aspects. What is your clear perspective?

> >

> > regards / Prafulla

> > , " vijayadas_pradeep "

> > <vijayadas_pradeep@> wrote:

> > >

> > > Dear Respected members

> > >

> > > This message is for all those who have an open mind towards

> > > discussions.If you have already made up your mind kindly ignore

> this

> > > mail.

> > >

> > > Late Sri R. Santhanam states in his book Deva Keralam that " the

> > > aspect as a rule should be seen in rashi chart only, not in

> navamsha

> > > and other charts, for aspects emanate only by longitudinal

> > > distances " .

> > >

> > > Thus we can see that,in BPHS as well as Devakeralam he has

> expressed

> > > his views.

> > >

> > > In Lagna shadvargake shloka,concerns did arise as he considerd

> them

> > > as a chart - while sage is talking about ''Lagnas shadvargas''

> which

> > > does not need a chart.

> > >

> > > I will share more case studies.Theory is part is enough and i

> hope

> > > we willnot say Late Santhanam was not clear regarding aspects.

> > >

> > > Regds

> > > Pradeep

> > >

> >

>

[Guest guest]

Dear Prafulla ji,

 

The main problem is proof of such things. Who can say abt the 100%

correctness of all the shastras.

 

but in today's world only proof is said to be correct. and the proof is

presented by many senior astrologers like. BV Raman / Sh Santhanam, Sh

KN Rao. as they dedicated their lives to this sacred science. They took

risk for their reputation if they are proved wrong anywhere, so you can

understand that how much experienced they are.

 

So to prove anything or to win the debate, one should give live proof.

i.e. Horoscope with detailed analysis with selected predective theory.

 

Lets see, in how many days or weeks Shri Pradeep ji provide his

methodology in practical sense.

 

 

Regards,

 

Tarun

[Guest guest]

Shri Pradeepji,

 

When we talk on debatable issues ,I mean controversial,

then we have to keep that issue, remained as so, only.

 

Many Great astrologers may publicly not accept the

authenticity of using aspects in Navamsha, but they

still do. I am not saying this is right, neither I

am saying this is wrong. Something which we cannot

prove we let it remain so, but would

never try to say that this is wrong, unless I

am able to provide pramana for the same. Which would

be difficult for me at least.

 

Any Doctor would say that its not right to

have safe delivery of a child at the house, but yet

if situation demands for whatever reason, he will go

the expectant mothers house, and get the delivery done.

 

The shopkeeper may say that there is nothing connected to

leather, when he is selling a silver foil (Varka)to be put on

Chadhava -prasad (Mithai) of Mandir, but he may actually not know,

that the smoothness comes only by spreading the

silver and flattening on leather sheet, even if

he knows he will not accept publicly.

 

A hotelier whose Sambhar is very tasty, may never tell

his clients who are Pure jains , that he is putting

a small amount of garlic (Which would be unnoticeable

apparently)in the Sambhar mix, but will make the

flavour good enough to make it real delicious.

 

Another point , man learns from experience,

so whatever any person (Including an astrologer)

says something at age of 30, he may have changed

views of the same at 45 or 60. So we never know

as of today,what may be ones view or perceptions

about a certain principle or application vis a vis

astrology related to the Great Seers of Modern day.

 

In the latest example I have given from Shri

Santhanamjis books, the example was shown in the

navamsha Chart explaining the role of the 10th

lord of navamsha for profession. And in this example

he explained that because of Saturns aspect (Though

the word was not used)the native was into

Leather business and a shoe-maker. The Saturn

was aspecting alongwith Mercury, and Mercury is also

a Karaka for Leather business, he explained in that

article.

 

In previous example too, in that post.

please read that way.

 

I have uptil now, never said or accepted in a single post

that watching aspects is the right thing or the wrong thing,

if You note than please note. because my views do not

matter in front of these Giants. I just watch them and learn.

 

I also accept that what i am reading today may be different

if I read in another book on same subject. So i do not

consider any of the authors as wrong. Yeh Duniya hai Bhai.

Someone likes Aloo sabji, someone Bhindi, someone

Paneer matar, and some one Baingan bharta. The point is

that Roti should go down the throat for body to

have strength to work, Roti may go with any sabzi which one

has taste for, does not matter.

 

rest upto you.

 

Bhaskar.

 

 

, " vijayadas_pradeep "

<vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

>

> Dear Prafulla ji

>

> You are still not getting the point.

>

> 1)K.N.Raoji considers aspects as well as bhavas - But says

> Karakamsha has to be seen from Rashi.Shri Sanjay Rath says,

>

> 2)Late Santhanam considers 7th from ,10th from etc from navamsha

> lagna in navamsha arrangement.But he says aspects cannot be seen

> there.Shri Bhaskar and you are missing this point and assuming those

> as aspects.He is clear regarding aspects.Pls try to understand why

> aspects are not possible.For this you have to try for yourslef,how

> navamsha is done.If you need any help in this regard ,i can take a

> chart and explain.But onyl if you want.

>

> For the same reason(considering them as a chart) ,Late Santhanam was

> unable to interpret shadvargake shloka.Sage is talking only about

> Lagnas shadvargas and not charts.

>

> In reality they all happen within Rashi chakra.Some recognize

> this ,but only in certain instances.

>

> As per the explanation from great grandfathers,it is very clear.If i

> follow their views i can understand each and every shloka in BPHS

> without any concern.It is uptto you to choose your path.

>

> Regds

> Pradeep

>

>

> , " Prafulla Gang " <jyotish@>

> wrote:

> >

> > Dear Pradeep ji,

> >

> > It is not the question of fixed mind or flexible mind. Mind

> accepts -

> > what he reads and hears.

> >

> > You have selectively referred Late Santhanam. First you were saying

> > there is no Navamsa chart; then Now you are referring his point of

> > view as navamsa chart and other D charts.

> >

> > Also - Please read all three volumes and you will see it

> transparently

> > - that, Late Santhanam has provided cominations in D9 charts, which

> > are not possible without aspects.

> >

> > Also - I quoted you from his own articles in TOA issues. How can we

> > believe them to be contrary to his interpretation model.

> >

> > Of course - it is your choice to reject those articles and quoted

> > conversation; but it is not correct to misquote him selectively.

> >

> > At some stage - you say there is no D charts, slowly over the

> threads

> > - now you are saying there are D charts (quoting Late Santhanam) -

> but

> > do not have aspects. What is your clear perspective?

> >

> > regards / Prafulla

> > , " vijayadas_pradeep "

> > <vijayadas_pradeep@> wrote:

> > >

> > > Dear Respected members

> > >

> > > This message is for all those who have an open mind towards

> > > discussions.If you have already made up your mind kindly ignore

> this

> > > mail.

> > >

> > > Late Sri R. Santhanam states in his book Deva Keralam that " the

> > > aspect as a rule should be seen in rashi chart only, not in

> navamsha

> > > and other charts, for aspects emanate only by longitudinal

> > > distances " .

> > >

> > > Thus we can see that,in BPHS as well as Devakeralam he has

> expressed

> > > his views.

> > >

> > > In Lagna shadvargake shloka,concerns did arise as he considerd

> them

> > > as a chart - while sage is talking about ''Lagnas shadvargas''

> which

> > > does not need a chart.

> > >

> > > I will share more case studies.Theory is part is enough and i

> hope

> > > we willnot say Late Santhanam was not clear regarding aspects.

> > >

> > > Regds

> > > Pradeep

> > >

> >

>

[Guest guest]

Dear Bhaskar ji

 

''Many Great astrologers may publicly not accept the authenticity of

using aspects in Navamsha, but they still do''.

 

 

If this is your way of debating.Thank you very much.

 

Regds

Pradeep

 

, " Bhaskar "

<bhaskar_jyotish wrote:

>

> Shri Pradeepji,

>

> When we talk on debatable issues ,I mean controversial,

> then we have to keep that issue, remained as so, only.

>

> Many Great astrologers may publicly not accept the

> authenticity of using aspects in Navamsha, but they

> still do. I am not saying this is right, neither I

> am saying this is wrong. Something which we cannot

> prove we let it remain so, but would

> never try to say that this is wrong, unless I

> am able to provide pramana for the same. Which would

> be difficult for me at least.

>

> Any Doctor would say that its not right to

> have safe delivery of a child at the house, but yet

> if situation demands for whatever reason, he will go

> the expectant mothers house, and get the delivery done.

>

> The shopkeeper may say that there is nothing connected to

> leather, when he is selling a silver foil (Varka)to be put on

> Chadhava -prasad (Mithai) of Mandir, but he may actually not know,

> that the smoothness comes only by spreading the

> silver and flattening on leather sheet, even if

> he knows he will not accept publicly.

>

> A hotelier whose Sambhar is very tasty, may never tell

> his clients who are Pure jains , that he is putting

> a small amount of garlic (Which would be unnoticeable

> apparently)in the Sambhar mix, but will make the

> flavour good enough to make it real delicious.

>

> Another point , man learns from experience,

> so whatever any person (Including an astrologer)

> says something at age of 30, he may have changed

> views of the same at 45 or 60. So we never know

> as of today,what may be ones view or perceptions

> about a certain principle or application vis a vis

> astrology related to the Great Seers of Modern day.

>

> In the latest example I have given from Shri

> Santhanamjis books, the example was shown in the

> navamsha Chart explaining the role of the 10th

> lord of navamsha for profession. And in this example

> he explained that because of Saturns aspect (Though

> the word was not used)the native was into

> Leather business and a shoe-maker. The Saturn

> was aspecting alongwith Mercury, and Mercury is also

> a Karaka for Leather business, he explained in that

> article.

>

> In previous example too, in that post.

> please read that way.

>

> I have uptil now, never said or accepted in a single post

> that watching aspects is the right thing or the wrong thing,

> if You note than please note. because my views do not

> matter in front of these Giants. I just watch them and learn.

>

> I also accept that what i am reading today may be different

> if I read in another book on same subject. So i do not

> consider any of the authors as wrong. Yeh Duniya hai Bhai.

> Someone likes Aloo sabji, someone Bhindi, someone

> Paneer matar, and some one Baingan bharta. The point is

> that Roti should go down the throat for body to

> have strength to work, Roti may go with any sabzi which one

> has taste for, does not matter.

>

> rest upto you.

>

> Bhaskar.

>

>

> , " vijayadas_pradeep "

> <vijayadas_pradeep@> wrote:

> >

> > Dear Prafulla ji

> >

> > You are still not getting the point.

> >

> > 1)K.N.Raoji considers aspects as well as bhavas - But says

> > Karakamsha has to be seen from Rashi.Shri Sanjay Rath says,

> >

> > 2)Late Santhanam considers 7th from ,10th from etc from navamsha

> > lagna in navamsha arrangement.But he says aspects cannot be seen

> > there.Shri Bhaskar and you are missing this point and assuming

those

> > as aspects.He is clear regarding aspects.Pls try to understand

why

> > aspects are not possible.For this you have to try for

yourslef,how

> > navamsha is done.If you need any help in this regard ,i can take

a

> > chart and explain.But onyl if you want.

> >

> > For the same reason(considering them as a chart) ,Late Santhanam

was

> > unable to interpret shadvargake shloka.Sage is talking only

about

> > Lagnas shadvargas and not charts.

> >

> > In reality they all happen within Rashi chakra.Some recognize

> > this ,but only in certain instances.

> >

> > As per the explanation from great grandfathers,it is very

clear.If i

> > follow their views i can understand each and every shloka in

BPHS

> > without any concern.It is uptto you to choose your path.

> >

> > Regds

> > Pradeep

> >

> >

> > , " Prafulla Gang " <jyotish@>

> > wrote:

> > >

> > > Dear Pradeep ji,

> > >

> > > It is not the question of fixed mind or flexible mind. Mind

> > accepts -

> > > what he reads and hears.

> > >

> > > You have selectively referred Late Santhanam. First you were

saying

> > > there is no Navamsa chart; then Now you are referring his

point of

> > > view as navamsa chart and other D charts.

> > >

> > > Also - Please read all three volumes and you will see it

> > transparently

> > > - that, Late Santhanam has provided cominations in D9 charts,

which

> > > are not possible without aspects.

> > >

> > > Also - I quoted you from his own articles in TOA issues. How

can we

> > > believe them to be contrary to his interpretation model.

> > >

> > > Of course - it is your choice to reject those articles and

quoted

> > > conversation; but it is not correct to misquote him

selectively.

> > >

> > > At some stage - you say there is no D charts, slowly over the

> > threads

> > > - now you are saying there are D charts (quoting Late

Santhanam) -

> > but

> > > do not have aspects. What is your clear perspective?

> > >

> > > regards / Prafulla

> > > , " vijayadas_pradeep "

> > > <vijayadas_pradeep@> wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Dear Respected members

> > > >

> > > > This message is for all those who have an open mind towards

> > > > discussions.If you have already made up your mind kindly

ignore

> > this

> > > > mail.

> > > >

> > > > Late Sri R. Santhanam states in his book Deva Keralam that "

the

> > > > aspect as a rule should be seen in rashi chart only, not in

> > navamsha

> > > > and other charts, for aspects emanate only by longitudinal

> > > > distances " .

> > > >

> > > > Thus we can see that,in BPHS as well as Devakeralam he has

> > expressed

> > > > his views.

> > > >

> > > > In Lagna shadvargake shloka,concerns did arise as he

considerd

> > them

> > > > as a chart - while sage is talking about ''Lagnas

shadvargas''

> > which

> > > > does not need a chart.

> > > >

> > > > I will share more case studies.Theory is part is enough and

i

> > hope

> > > > we willnot say Late Santhanam was not clear regarding

aspects.

> > > >

> > > > Regds

> > > > Pradeep

> > > >

> > >

> >

>

[Guest guest]

Shri Pradeepji,

 

You have tried to prove that many great astrologers do not

use navamsha charts and neither aspects. and

I HAVE PROVED , with various examples and refrences from

these same very astrologers about whom you were talking,that

they indeed do use aspects in navamsha, though some may

express this explicitly ,like in my examples of KN rao,

whereas some may express this in an subtle manner,like

in my example of Shri santhanamji.

 

I think now you are taking this to heart.

Please do not take to heart. Debate or no debate on

this thread, I still have high regards for you.

 

regards,

Bhaskar.

 

 

 

, " vijayadas_pradeep "

<vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

>

> Dear Bhaskar ji

>

> ''Many Great astrologers may publicly not accept the authenticity of

> using aspects in Navamsha, but they still do''.

>

>

> If this is your way of debating.Thank you very much.

>

> Regds

> Pradeep

>

> , " Bhaskar "

> <bhaskar_jyotish@> wrote:

> >

> > Shri Pradeepji,

> >

> > When we talk on debatable issues ,I mean controversial,

> > then we have to keep that issue, remained as so, only.

> >

> > Many Great astrologers may publicly not accept the

> > authenticity of using aspects in Navamsha, but they

> > still do. I am not saying this is right, neither I

> > am saying this is wrong. Something which we cannot

> > prove we let it remain so, but would

> > never try to say that this is wrong, unless I

> > am able to provide pramana for the same. Which would

> > be difficult for me at least.

> >

> > Any Doctor would say that its not right to

> > have safe delivery of a child at the house, but yet

> > if situation demands for whatever reason, he will go

> > the expectant mothers house, and get the delivery done.

> >

> > The shopkeeper may say that there is nothing connected to

> > leather, when he is selling a silver foil (Varka)to be put on

> > Chadhava -prasad (Mithai) of Mandir, but he may actually not know,

> > that the smoothness comes only by spreading the

> > silver and flattening on leather sheet, even if

> > he knows he will not accept publicly.

> >

> > A hotelier whose Sambhar is very tasty, may never tell

> > his clients who are Pure jains , that he is putting

> > a small amount of garlic (Which would be unnoticeable

> > apparently)in the Sambhar mix, but will make the

> > flavour good enough to make it real delicious.

> >

> > Another point , man learns from experience,

> > so whatever any person (Including an astrologer)

> > says something at age of 30, he may have changed

> > views of the same at 45 or 60. So we never know

> > as of today,what may be ones view or perceptions

> > about a certain principle or application vis a vis

> > astrology related to the Great Seers of Modern day.

> >

> > In the latest example I have given from Shri

> > Santhanamjis books, the example was shown in the

> > navamsha Chart explaining the role of the 10th

> > lord of navamsha for profession. And in this example

> > he explained that because of Saturns aspect (Though

> > the word was not used)the native was into

> > Leather business and a shoe-maker. The Saturn

> > was aspecting alongwith Mercury, and Mercury is also

> > a Karaka for Leather business, he explained in that

> > article.

> >

> > In previous example too, in that post.

> > please read that way.

> >

> > I have uptil now, never said or accepted in a single post

> > that watching aspects is the right thing or the wrong thing,

> > if You note than please note. because my views do not

> > matter in front of these Giants. I just watch them and learn.

> >

> > I also accept that what i am reading today may be different

> > if I read in another book on same subject. So i do not

> > consider any of the authors as wrong. Yeh Duniya hai Bhai.

> > Someone likes Aloo sabji, someone Bhindi, someone

> > Paneer matar, and some one Baingan bharta. The point is

> > that Roti should go down the throat for body to

> > have strength to work, Roti may go with any sabzi which one

> > has taste for, does not matter.

> >

> > rest upto you.

> >

> > Bhaskar.

> >

> >

> > , " vijayadas_pradeep "

> > <vijayadas_pradeep@> wrote:

> > >

> > > Dear Prafulla ji

> > >

> > > You are still not getting the point.

> > >

> > > 1)K.N.Raoji considers aspects as well as bhavas - But says

> > > Karakamsha has to be seen from Rashi.Shri Sanjay Rath says,

> > >

> > > 2)Late Santhanam considers 7th from ,10th from etc from navamsha

> > > lagna in navamsha arrangement.But he says aspects cannot be seen

> > > there.Shri Bhaskar and you are missing this point and assuming

> those

> > > as aspects.He is clear regarding aspects.Pls try to understand

> why

> > > aspects are not possible.For this you have to try for

> yourslef,how

> > > navamsha is done.If you need any help in this regard ,i can take

> a

> > > chart and explain.But onyl if you want.

> > >

> > > For the same reason(considering them as a chart) ,Late Santhanam

> was

> > > unable to interpret shadvargake shloka.Sage is talking only

> about

> > > Lagnas shadvargas and not charts.

> > >

> > > In reality they all happen within Rashi chakra.Some recognize

> > > this ,but only in certain instances.

> > >

> > > As per the explanation from great grandfathers,it is very

> clear.If i

> > > follow their views i can understand each and every shloka in

> BPHS

> > > without any concern.It is uptto you to choose your path.

> > >

> > > Regds

> > > Pradeep

> > >

> > >

> > > , " Prafulla Gang " <jyotish@>

> > > wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Dear Pradeep ji,

> > > >

> > > > It is not the question of fixed mind or flexible mind. Mind

> > > accepts -

> > > > what he reads and hears.

> > > >

> > > > You have selectively referred Late Santhanam. First you were

> saying

> > > > there is no Navamsa chart; then Now you are referring his

> point of

> > > > view as navamsa chart and other D charts.

> > > >

> > > > Also - Please read all three volumes and you will see it

> > > transparently

> > > > - that, Late Santhanam has provided cominations in D9 charts,

> which

> > > > are not possible without aspects.

> > > >

> > > > Also - I quoted you from his own articles in TOA issues. How

> can we

> > > > believe them to be contrary to his interpretation model.

> > > >

> > > > Of course - it is your choice to reject those articles and

> quoted

> > > > conversation; but it is not correct to misquote him

> selectively.

> > > >

> > > > At some stage - you say there is no D charts, slowly over the

> > > threads

> > > > - now you are saying there are D charts (quoting Late

> Santhanam) -

> > > but

> > > > do not have aspects. What is your clear perspective?

> > > >

> > > > regards / Prafulla

> > > > , " vijayadas_pradeep "

> > > > <vijayadas_pradeep@> wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > > Dear Respected members

> > > > >

> > > > > This message is for all those who have an open mind towards

> > > > > discussions.If you have already made up your mind kindly

> ignore

> > > this

> > > > > mail.

> > > > >

> > > > > Late Sri R. Santhanam states in his book Deva Keralam that "

> the

> > > > > aspect as a rule should be seen in rashi chart only, not in

> > > navamsha

> > > > > and other charts, for aspects emanate only by longitudinal

> > > > > distances " .

> > > > >

> > > > > Thus we can see that,in BPHS as well as Devakeralam he has

> > > expressed

> > > > > his views.

> > > > >

> > > > > In Lagna shadvargake shloka,concerns did arise as he

> considerd

> > > them

> > > > > as a chart - while sage is talking about ''Lagnas

> shadvargas''

> > > which

> > > > > does not need a chart.

> > > > >

> > > > > I will share more case studies.Theory is part is enough and

> i

> > > hope

> > > > > we willnot say Late Santhanam was not clear regarding

> aspects.

> > > > >

> > > > > Regds

> > > > > Pradeep

> > > > >

> > > >

> > >

> >

>

[Guest guest]

Dear Bhaskar ji

 

You will have to understand that,i will nto have any problem if some

one is not accepting my views.But if some one is making fun of or

giving childish kutarkas ,then it will certainyl pain one.Especially

when i have been debating this for the past 3-4 years.

 

Don't you think once we accept that ,raoji uses charts,the issue is

known to everyone.

 

But if you give as if it is a new info -

 

Pramana -1 K.N.Rao uses

 

Praman-2 K.N.Rao uses

 

Pramana -3 K.N.Rao uses

 

Do i have to reply all the time.What is this discussion about ?

Whether K.N.Raoji uses aspects or is it allowed as per classics.You

yourself had said,if K.N.Raoji uses karakamsha in rashi it doesnt

prove anything.I have to give Pramana.Then what is this Pramana

business 1,2,3.It is really testing patience.

 

Even if you do not accept my views,i would love if you can refer my

name for Nobel prize -Patience in jyotish debates:-)

 

Regds

Pradeep

, " Bhaskar " <bhaskar_jyotish

wrote:

>

> Shri Pradeepji,

>

> You have tried to prove that many great astrologers do not

> use navamsha charts and neither aspects. and

> I HAVE PROVED , with various examples and refrences from

> these same very astrologers about whom you were talking,that

> they indeed do use aspects in navamsha, though some may

> express this explicitly ,like in my examples of KN rao,

> whereas some may express this in an subtle manner,like

> in my example of Shri santhanamji.

>

> I think now you are taking this to heart.

> Please do not take to heart. Debate or no debate on

> this thread, I still have high regards for you.

>

> regards,

> Bhaskar.

>

>

>

> , " vijayadas_pradeep "

> <vijayadas_pradeep@> wrote:

> >

> > Dear Bhaskar ji

> >

> > ''Many Great astrologers may publicly not accept the

authenticity of

> > using aspects in Navamsha, but they still do''.

> >

> >

> > If this is your way of debating.Thank you very much.

> >

> > Regds

> > Pradeep

> >

> > , " Bhaskar "

> > <bhaskar_jyotish@> wrote:

> > >

> > > Shri Pradeepji,

> > >

> > > When we talk on debatable issues ,I mean controversial,

> > > then we have to keep that issue, remained as so, only.

> > >

> > > Many Great astrologers may publicly not accept the

> > > authenticity of using aspects in Navamsha, but they

> > > still do. I am not saying this is right, neither I

> > > am saying this is wrong. Something which we cannot

> > > prove we let it remain so, but would

> > > never try to say that this is wrong, unless I

> > > am able to provide pramana for the same. Which would

> > > be difficult for me at least.

> > >

> > > Any Doctor would say that its not right to

> > > have safe delivery of a child at the house, but yet

> > > if situation demands for whatever reason, he will go

> > > the expectant mothers house, and get the delivery done.

> > >

> > > The shopkeeper may say that there is nothing connected to

> > > leather, when he is selling a silver foil (Varka)to be put on

> > > Chadhava -prasad (Mithai) of Mandir, but he may actually not

know,

> > > that the smoothness comes only by spreading the

> > > silver and flattening on leather sheet, even if

> > > he knows he will not accept publicly.

> > >

> > > A hotelier whose Sambhar is very tasty, may never tell

> > > his clients who are Pure jains , that he is putting

> > > a small amount of garlic (Which would be unnoticeable

> > > apparently)in the Sambhar mix, but will make the

> > > flavour good enough to make it real delicious.

> > >

> > > Another point , man learns from experience,

> > > so whatever any person (Including an astrologer)

> > > says something at age of 30, he may have changed

> > > views of the same at 45 or 60. So we never know

> > > as of today,what may be ones view or perceptions

> > > about a certain principle or application vis a vis

> > > astrology related to the Great Seers of Modern day.

> > >

> > > In the latest example I have given from Shri

> > > Santhanamjis books, the example was shown in the

> > > navamsha Chart explaining the role of the 10th

> > > lord of navamsha for profession. And in this example

> > > he explained that because of Saturns aspect (Though

> > > the word was not used)the native was into

> > > Leather business and a shoe-maker. The Saturn

> > > was aspecting alongwith Mercury, and Mercury is also

> > > a Karaka for Leather business, he explained in that

> > > article.

> > >

> > > In previous example too, in that post.

> > > please read that way.

> > >

> > > I have uptil now, never said or accepted in a single post

> > > that watching aspects is the right thing or the wrong thing,

> > > if You note than please note. because my views do not

> > > matter in front of these Giants. I just watch them and learn.

> > >

> > > I also accept that what i am reading today may be different

> > > if I read in another book on same subject. So i do not

> > > consider any of the authors as wrong. Yeh Duniya hai Bhai.

> > > Someone likes Aloo sabji, someone Bhindi, someone

> > > Paneer matar, and some one Baingan bharta. The point is

> > > that Roti should go down the throat for body to

> > > have strength to work, Roti may go with any sabzi which one

> > > has taste for, does not matter.

> > >

> > > rest upto you.

> > >

> > > Bhaskar.

> > >

> > >

> > > , " vijayadas_pradeep "

> > > <vijayadas_pradeep@> wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Dear Prafulla ji

> > > >

> > > > You are still not getting the point.

> > > >

> > > > 1)K.N.Raoji considers aspects as well as bhavas - But says

> > > > Karakamsha has to be seen from Rashi.Shri Sanjay Rath says,

> > > >

> > > > 2)Late Santhanam considers 7th from ,10th from etc from

navamsha

> > > > lagna in navamsha arrangement.But he says aspects cannot be

seen

> > > > there.Shri Bhaskar and you are missing this point and

assuming

> > those

> > > > as aspects.He is clear regarding aspects.Pls try to

understand

> > why

> > > > aspects are not possible.For this you have to try for

> > yourslef,how

> > > > navamsha is done.If you need any help in this regard ,i can

take

> > a

> > > > chart and explain.But onyl if you want.

> > > >

> > > > For the same reason(considering them as a chart) ,Late

Santhanam

> > was

> > > > unable to interpret shadvargake shloka.Sage is talking only

> > about

> > > > Lagnas shadvargas and not charts.

> > > >

> > > > In reality they all happen within Rashi chakra.Some

recognize

> > > > this ,but only in certain instances.

> > > >

> > > > As per the explanation from great grandfathers,it is very

> > clear.If i

> > > > follow their views i can understand each and every shloka in

> > BPHS

> > > > without any concern.It is uptto you to choose your path.

> > > >

> > > > Regds

> > > > Pradeep

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > , " Prafulla Gang "

<jyotish@>

> > > > wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > > Dear Pradeep ji,

> > > > >

> > > > > It is not the question of fixed mind or flexible mind.

Mind

> > > > accepts -

> > > > > what he reads and hears.

> > > > >

> > > > > You have selectively referred Late Santhanam. First you

were

> > saying

> > > > > there is no Navamsa chart; then Now you are referring his

> > point of

> > > > > view as navamsa chart and other D charts.

> > > > >

> > > > > Also - Please read all three volumes and you will see it

> > > > transparently

> > > > > - that, Late Santhanam has provided cominations in D9

charts,

> > which

> > > > > are not possible without aspects.

> > > > >

> > > > > Also - I quoted you from his own articles in TOA issues.

How

> > can we

> > > > > believe them to be contrary to his interpretation model.

> > > > >

> > > > > Of course - it is your choice to reject those articles and

> > quoted

> > > > > conversation; but it is not correct to misquote him

> > selectively.

> > > > >

> > > > > At some stage - you say there is no D charts, slowly over

the

> > > > threads

> > > > > - now you are saying there are D charts (quoting Late

> > Santhanam) -

> > > > but

> > > > > do not have aspects. What is your clear perspective?

> > > > >

> > > > > regards / Prafulla

> > > > > , " vijayadas_pradeep "

> > > > > <vijayadas_pradeep@> wrote:

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Dear Respected members

> > > > > >

> > > > > > This message is for all those who have an open mind

towards

> > > > > > discussions.If you have already made up your mind kindly

> > ignore

> > > > this

> > > > > > mail.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Late Sri R. Santhanam states in his book Deva Keralam

that "

> > the

> > > > > > aspect as a rule should be seen in rashi chart only, not

in

> > > > navamsha

> > > > > > and other charts, for aspects emanate only by

longitudinal

> > > > > > distances " .

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Thus we can see that,in BPHS as well as Devakeralam he

has

> > > > expressed

> > > > > > his views.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > In Lagna shadvargake shloka,concerns did arise as he

> > considerd

> > > > them

> > > > > > as a chart - while sage is talking about ''Lagnas

> > shadvargas''

> > > > which

> > > > > > does not need a chart.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > I will share more case studies.Theory is part is enough

and

> > i

> > > > hope

> > > > > > we willnot say Late Santhanam was not clear regarding

> > aspects.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Regds

> > > > > > Pradeep

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > >

> >

>

[Guest guest]

Dear Pradeepji,

 

It pains me that you can even think remotely,

that I could even think of making fun of You.

 

We are all keeping patience at each other,

And it is a sad fact for me that you have still

not understood me,I was arguing on the points put

up, and not actually with You, as a person.

 

Thanks, but you have kept patience,

all the same, better than most of us.

 

regards,

Bhaskar.

 

 

, " vijayadas_pradeep "

<vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

>

> Dear Bhaskar ji

>

> You will have to understand that,i will nto have any problem if some

> one is not accepting my views.But if some one is making fun of or

> giving childish kutarkas ,then it will certainyl pain one.Especially

> when i have been debating this for the past 3-4 years.

>

> Don't you think once we accept that ,raoji uses charts,the issue is

> known to everyone.

>

> But if you give as if it is a new info -

>

> Pramana -1 K.N.Rao uses

>

> Praman-2 K.N.Rao uses

>

> Pramana -3 K.N.Rao uses

>

> Do i have to reply all the time.What is this discussion about ?

> Whether K.N.Raoji uses aspects or is it allowed as per classics.You

> yourself had said,if K.N.Raoji uses karakamsha in rashi it doesnt

> prove anything.I have to give Pramana.Then what is this Pramana

> business 1,2,3.It is really testing patience.

>

> Even if you do not accept my views,i would love if you can refer my

> name for Nobel prize -Patience in jyotish debates:-)

>

> Regds

> Pradeep

> , " Bhaskar " <bhaskar_jyotish@>

> wrote:

> >

> > Shri Pradeepji,

> >

> > You have tried to prove that many great astrologers do not

> > use navamsha charts and neither aspects. and

> > I HAVE PROVED , with various examples and refrences from

> > these same very astrologers about whom you were talking,that

> > they indeed do use aspects in navamsha, though some may

> > express this explicitly ,like in my examples of KN rao,

> > whereas some may express this in an subtle manner,like

> > in my example of Shri santhanamji.

> >

> > I think now you are taking this to heart.

> > Please do not take to heart. Debate or no debate on

> > this thread, I still have high regards for you.

> >

> > regards,

> > Bhaskar.

> >

> >

> >

> > , " vijayadas_pradeep "

> > <vijayadas_pradeep@> wrote:

> > >

> > > Dear Bhaskar ji

> > >

> > > ''Many Great astrologers may publicly not accept the

> authenticity of

> > > using aspects in Navamsha, but they still do''.

> > >

> > >

> > > If this is your way of debating.Thank you very much.

> > >

> > > Regds

> > > Pradeep

> > >

> > > , " Bhaskar "

> > > <bhaskar_jyotish@> wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Shri Pradeepji,

> > > >

> > > > When we talk on debatable issues ,I mean controversial,

> > > > then we have to keep that issue, remained as so, only.

> > > >

> > > > Many Great astrologers may publicly not accept the

> > > > authenticity of using aspects in Navamsha, but they

> > > > still do. I am not saying this is right, neither I

> > > > am saying this is wrong. Something which we cannot

> > > > prove we let it remain so, but would

> > > > never try to say that this is wrong, unless I

> > > > am able to provide pramana for the same. Which would

> > > > be difficult for me at least.

> > > >

> > > > Any Doctor would say that its not right to

> > > > have safe delivery of a child at the house, but yet

> > > > if situation demands for whatever reason, he will go

> > > > the expectant mothers house, and get the delivery done.

> > > >

> > > > The shopkeeper may say that there is nothing connected to

> > > > leather, when he is selling a silver foil (Varka)to be put on

> > > > Chadhava -prasad (Mithai) of Mandir, but he may actually not

> know,

> > > > that the smoothness comes only by spreading the

> > > > silver and flattening on leather sheet, even if

> > > > he knows he will not accept publicly.

> > > >

> > > > A hotelier whose Sambhar is very tasty, may never tell

> > > > his clients who are Pure jains , that he is putting

> > > > a small amount of garlic (Which would be unnoticeable

> > > > apparently)in the Sambhar mix, but will make the

> > > > flavour good enough to make it real delicious.

> > > >

> > > > Another point , man learns from experience,

> > > > so whatever any person (Including an astrologer)

> > > > says something at age of 30, he may have changed

> > > > views of the same at 45 or 60. So we never know

> > > > as of today,what may be ones view or perceptions

> > > > about a certain principle or application vis a vis

> > > > astrology related to the Great Seers of Modern day.

> > > >

> > > > In the latest example I have given from Shri

> > > > Santhanamjis books, the example was shown in the

> > > > navamsha Chart explaining the role of the 10th

> > > > lord of navamsha for profession. And in this example

> > > > he explained that because of Saturns aspect (Though

> > > > the word was not used)the native was into

> > > > Leather business and a shoe-maker. The Saturn

> > > > was aspecting alongwith Mercury, and Mercury is also

> > > > a Karaka for Leather business, he explained in that

> > > > article.

> > > >

> > > > In previous example too, in that post.

> > > > please read that way.

> > > >

> > > > I have uptil now, never said or accepted in a single post

> > > > that watching aspects is the right thing or the wrong thing,

> > > > if You note than please note. because my views do not

> > > > matter in front of these Giants. I just watch them and learn.

> > > >

> > > > I also accept that what i am reading today may be different

> > > > if I read in another book on same subject. So i do not

> > > > consider any of the authors as wrong. Yeh Duniya hai Bhai.

> > > > Someone likes Aloo sabji, someone Bhindi, someone

> > > > Paneer matar, and some one Baingan bharta. The point is

> > > > that Roti should go down the throat for body to

> > > > have strength to work, Roti may go with any sabzi which one

> > > > has taste for, does not matter.

> > > >

> > > > rest upto you.

> > > >

> > > > Bhaskar.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > , " vijayadas_pradeep "

> > > > <vijayadas_pradeep@> wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > > Dear Prafulla ji

> > > > >

> > > > > You are still not getting the point.

> > > > >

> > > > > 1)K.N.Raoji considers aspects as well as bhavas - But says

> > > > > Karakamsha has to be seen from Rashi.Shri Sanjay Rath says,

> > > > >

> > > > > 2)Late Santhanam considers 7th from ,10th from etc from

> navamsha

> > > > > lagna in navamsha arrangement.But he says aspects cannot be

> seen

> > > > > there.Shri Bhaskar and you are missing this point and

> assuming

> > > those

> > > > > as aspects.He is clear regarding aspects.Pls try to

> understand

> > > why

> > > > > aspects are not possible.For this you have to try for

> > > yourslef,how

> > > > > navamsha is done.If you need any help in this regard ,i can

> take

> > > a

> > > > > chart and explain.But onyl if you want.

> > > > >

> > > > > For the same reason(considering them as a chart) ,Late

> Santhanam

> > > was

> > > > > unable to interpret shadvargake shloka.Sage is talking only

> > > about

> > > > > Lagnas shadvargas and not charts.

> > > > >

> > > > > In reality they all happen within Rashi chakra.Some

> recognize

> > > > > this ,but only in certain instances.

> > > > >

> > > > > As per the explanation from great grandfathers,it is very

> > > clear.If i

> > > > > follow their views i can understand each and every shloka in

> > > BPHS

> > > > > without any concern.It is uptto you to choose your path.

> > > > >

> > > > > Regds

> > > > > Pradeep

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > , " Prafulla Gang "

> <jyotish@>

> > > > > wrote:

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Dear Pradeep ji,

> > > > > >

> > > > > > It is not the question of fixed mind or flexible mind.

> Mind

> > > > > accepts -

> > > > > > what he reads and hears.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > You have selectively referred Late Santhanam. First you

> were

> > > saying

> > > > > > there is no Navamsa chart; then Now you are referring his

> > > point of

> > > > > > view as navamsa chart and other D charts.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Also - Please read all three volumes and you will see it

> > > > > transparently

> > > > > > - that, Late Santhanam has provided cominations in D9

> charts,

> > > which

> > > > > > are not possible without aspects.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Also - I quoted you from his own articles in TOA issues.

> How

> > > can we

> > > > > > believe them to be contrary to his interpretation model.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Of course - it is your choice to reject those articles and

> > > quoted

> > > > > > conversation; but it is not correct to misquote him

> > > selectively.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > At some stage - you say there is no D charts, slowly over

> the

> > > > > threads

> > > > > > - now you are saying there are D charts (quoting Late

> > > Santhanam) -

> > > > > but

> > > > > > do not have aspects. What is your clear perspective?

> > > > > >

> > > > > > regards / Prafulla

> > > > > > , " vijayadas_pradeep "

> > > > > > <vijayadas_pradeep@> wrote:

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Dear Respected members

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > This message is for all those who have an open mind

> towards

> > > > > > > discussions.If you have already made up your mind kindly

> > > ignore

> > > > > this

> > > > > > > mail.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Late Sri R. Santhanam states in his book Deva Keralam

> that "

> > > the

> > > > > > > aspect as a rule should be seen in rashi chart only, not

> in

> > > > > navamsha

> > > > > > > and other charts, for aspects emanate only by

> longitudinal

> > > > > > > distances " .

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Thus we can see that,in BPHS as well as Devakeralam he

> has

> > > > > expressed

> > > > > > > his views.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > In Lagna shadvargake shloka,concerns did arise as he

> > > considerd

> > > > > them

> > > > > > > as a chart - while sage is talking about ''Lagnas

> > > shadvargas''

> > > > > which

> > > > > > > does not need a chart.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > I will share more case studies.Theory is part is enough

> and

> > > i

> > > > > hope

> > > > > > > we willnot say Late Santhanam was not clear regarding

> > > aspects.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Regds

> > > > > > > Pradeep

> > > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > >

> >

>

[Guest guest]

Dear Pradeepji,

 

You have thought low about me.

It is not acceptable. We are arguing only

on jyotish points, and every second post I am

getting the cue, that you may take it wrong, and

finally did so. There is no fun for any

good person in these matters.How and why

should I make fun of you ? You have never done me

any wrong , not my opponent in any way, have

no grudges against you, but always respcted

you for your knowledge.

 

On the contrary i have been worrying for

You, if you notice, i have been asking for close

of the thread after every few mails, directly or

indirectly,only so that you should not land in a

tight corenr, with no suppoorters left, and with

no strong theory to cling to.

 

I thought that you are wise enough to feel this

compassion from me in most of my mails towards

you, but if you cannot sense this, then its my

loss.

 

best wishes,

Bhaskar.

 

 

 

 

 

, " Bhaskar " <bhaskar_jyotish

wrote:

>

> Dear Pradeepji,

>

> It pains me that you can even think remotely,

> that I could even think of making fun of You.

>

> We are all keeping patience at each other,

> And it is a sad fact for me that you have still

> not understood me,I was arguing on the points put

> up, and not actually with You, as a person.

>

> Thanks, but you have kept patience,

> all the same, better than most of us.

>

> regards,

> Bhaskar.

>

>

> , " vijayadas_pradeep "

> <vijayadas_pradeep@> wrote:

> >

> > Dear Bhaskar ji

> >

> > You will have to understand that,i will nto have any problem if some

> > one is not accepting my views.But if some one is making fun of or

> > giving childish kutarkas ,then it will certainyl pain one.Especially

> > when i have been debating this for the past 3-4 years.

> >

> > Don't you think once we accept that ,raoji uses charts,the issue is

> > known to everyone.

> >

> > But if you give as if it is a new info -

> >

> > Pramana -1 K.N.Rao uses

> >

> > Praman-2 K.N.Rao uses

> >

> > Pramana -3 K.N.Rao uses

> >

> > Do i have to reply all the time.What is this discussion about ?

> > Whether K.N.Raoji uses aspects or is it allowed as per classics.You

> > yourself had said,if K.N.Raoji uses karakamsha in rashi it doesnt

> > prove anything.I have to give Pramana.Then what is this Pramana

> > business 1,2,3.It is really testing patience.

> >

> > Even if you do not accept my views,i would love if you can refer my

> > name for Nobel prize -Patience in jyotish debates:-)

> >

> > Regds

> > Pradeep

> > , " Bhaskar " <bhaskar_jyotish@>

> > wrote:

> > >

> > > Shri Pradeepji,

> > >

> > > You have tried to prove that many great astrologers do not

> > > use navamsha charts and neither aspects. and

> > > I HAVE PROVED , with various examples and refrences from

> > > these same very astrologers about whom you were talking,that

> > > they indeed do use aspects in navamsha, though some may

> > > express this explicitly ,like in my examples of KN rao,

> > > whereas some may express this in an subtle manner,like

> > > in my example of Shri santhanamji.

> > >

> > > I think now you are taking this to heart.

> > > Please do not take to heart. Debate or no debate on

> > > this thread, I still have high regards for you.

> > >

> > > regards,

> > > Bhaskar.

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > , " vijayadas_pradeep "

> > > <vijayadas_pradeep@> wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Dear Bhaskar ji

> > > >

> > > > ''Many Great astrologers may publicly not accept the

> > authenticity of

> > > > using aspects in Navamsha, but they still do''.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > If this is your way of debating.Thank you very much.

> > > >

> > > > Regds

> > > > Pradeep

> > > >

> > > > , " Bhaskar "

> > > > <bhaskar_jyotish@> wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > > Shri Pradeepji,

> > > > >

> > > > > When we talk on debatable issues ,I mean controversial,

> > > > > then we have to keep that issue, remained as so, only.

> > > > >

> > > > > Many Great astrologers may publicly not accept the

> > > > > authenticity of using aspects in Navamsha, but they

> > > > > still do. I am not saying this is right, neither I

> > > > > am saying this is wrong. Something which we cannot

> > > > > prove we let it remain so, but would

> > > > > never try to say that this is wrong, unless I

> > > > > am able to provide pramana for the same. Which would

> > > > > be difficult for me at least.

> > > > >

> > > > > Any Doctor would say that its not right to

> > > > > have safe delivery of a child at the house, but yet

> > > > > if situation demands for whatever reason, he will go

> > > > > the expectant mothers house, and get the delivery done.

> > > > >

> > > > > The shopkeeper may say that there is nothing connected to

> > > > > leather, when he is selling a silver foil (Varka)to be put on

> > > > > Chadhava -prasad (Mithai) of Mandir, but he may actually not

> > know,

> > > > > that the smoothness comes only by spreading the

> > > > > silver and flattening on leather sheet, even if

> > > > > he knows he will not accept publicly.

> > > > >

> > > > > A hotelier whose Sambhar is very tasty, may never tell

> > > > > his clients who are Pure jains , that he is putting

> > > > > a small amount of garlic (Which would be unnoticeable

> > > > > apparently)in the Sambhar mix, but will make the

> > > > > flavour good enough to make it real delicious.

> > > > >

> > > > > Another point , man learns from experience,

> > > > > so whatever any person (Including an astrologer)

> > > > > says something at age of 30, he may have changed

> > > > > views of the same at 45 or 60. So we never know

> > > > > as of today,what may be ones view or perceptions

> > > > > about a certain principle or application vis a vis

> > > > > astrology related to the Great Seers of Modern day.

> > > > >

> > > > > In the latest example I have given from Shri

> > > > > Santhanamjis books, the example was shown in the

> > > > > navamsha Chart explaining the role of the 10th

> > > > > lord of navamsha for profession. And in this example

> > > > > he explained that because of Saturns aspect (Though

> > > > > the word was not used)the native was into

> > > > > Leather business and a shoe-maker. The Saturn

> > > > > was aspecting alongwith Mercury, and Mercury is also

> > > > > a Karaka for Leather business, he explained in that

> > > > > article.

> > > > >

> > > > > In previous example too, in that post.

> > > > > please read that way.

> > > > >

> > > > > I have uptil now, never said or accepted in a single post

> > > > > that watching aspects is the right thing or the wrong thing,

> > > > > if You note than please note. because my views do not

> > > > > matter in front of these Giants. I just watch them and learn.

> > > > >

> > > > > I also accept that what i am reading today may be different

> > > > > if I read in another book on same subject. So i do not

> > > > > consider any of the authors as wrong. Yeh Duniya hai Bhai.

> > > > > Someone likes Aloo sabji, someone Bhindi, someone

> > > > > Paneer matar, and some one Baingan bharta. The point is

> > > > > that Roti should go down the throat for body to

> > > > > have strength to work, Roti may go with any sabzi which one

> > > > > has taste for, does not matter.

> > > > >

> > > > > rest upto you.

> > > > >

> > > > > Bhaskar.

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > , " vijayadas_pradeep "

> > > > > <vijayadas_pradeep@> wrote:

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Dear Prafulla ji

> > > > > >

> > > > > > You are still not getting the point.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > 1)K.N.Raoji considers aspects as well as bhavas - But says

> > > > > > Karakamsha has to be seen from Rashi.Shri Sanjay Rath says,

> > > > > >

> > > > > > 2)Late Santhanam considers 7th from ,10th from etc from

> > navamsha

> > > > > > lagna in navamsha arrangement.But he says aspects cannot be

> > seen

> > > > > > there.Shri Bhaskar and you are missing this point and

> > assuming

> > > > those

> > > > > > as aspects.He is clear regarding aspects.Pls try to

> > understand

> > > > why

> > > > > > aspects are not possible.For this you have to try for

> > > > yourslef,how

> > > > > > navamsha is done.If you need any help in this regard ,i can

> > take

> > > > a

> > > > > > chart and explain.But onyl if you want.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > For the same reason(considering them as a chart) ,Late

> > Santhanam

> > > > was

> > > > > > unable to interpret shadvargake shloka.Sage is talking only

> > > > about

> > > > > > Lagnas shadvargas and not charts.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > In reality they all happen within Rashi chakra.Some

> > recognize

> > > > > > this ,but only in certain instances.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > As per the explanation from great grandfathers,it is very

> > > > clear.If i

> > > > > > follow their views i can understand each and every shloka in

> > > > BPHS

> > > > > > without any concern.It is uptto you to choose your path.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Regds

> > > > > > Pradeep

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > > , " Prafulla Gang "

> > <jyotish@>

> > > > > > wrote:

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Dear Pradeep ji,

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > It is not the question of fixed mind or flexible mind.

> > Mind

> > > > > > accepts -

> > > > > > > what he reads and hears.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > You have selectively referred Late Santhanam. First you

> > were

> > > > saying

> > > > > > > there is no Navamsa chart; then Now you are referring his

> > > > point of

> > > > > > > view as navamsa chart and other D charts.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Also - Please read all three volumes and you will see it

> > > > > > transparently

> > > > > > > - that, Late Santhanam has provided cominations in D9

> > charts,

> > > > which

> > > > > > > are not possible without aspects.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Also - I quoted you from his own articles in TOA issues.

> > How

> > > > can we

> > > > > > > believe them to be contrary to his interpretation model.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Of course - it is your choice to reject those articles and

> > > > quoted

> > > > > > > conversation; but it is not correct to misquote him

> > > > selectively.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > At some stage - you say there is no D charts, slowly over

> > the

> > > > > > threads

> > > > > > > - now you are saying there are D charts (quoting Late

> > > > Santhanam) -

> > > > > > but

> > > > > > > do not have aspects. What is your clear perspective?

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > regards / Prafulla

> > > > > > > , " vijayadas_pradeep "

> > > > > > > <vijayadas_pradeep@> wrote:

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Dear Respected members

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > This message is for all those who have an open mind

> > towards

> > > > > > > > discussions.If you have already made up your mind kindly

> > > > ignore

> > > > > > this

> > > > > > > > mail.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Late Sri R. Santhanam states in his book Deva Keralam

> > that "

> > > > the

> > > > > > > > aspect as a rule should be seen in rashi chart only, not

> > in

> > > > > > navamsha

> > > > > > > > and other charts, for aspects emanate only by

> > longitudinal

> > > > > > > > distances " .

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Thus we can see that,in BPHS as well as Devakeralam he

> > has

> > > > > > expressed

> > > > > > > > his views.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > In Lagna shadvargake shloka,concerns did arise as he

> > > > considerd

> > > > > > them

> > > > > > > > as a chart - while sage is talking about ''Lagnas

> > > > shadvargas''

> > > > > > which

> > > > > > > > does not need a chart.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > I will share more case studies.Theory is part is enough

> > and

> > > > i

> > > > > > hope

> > > > > > > > we willnot say Late Santhanam was not clear regarding

> > > > aspects.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Regds

> > > > > > > > Pradeep

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > >

> >

>

[Guest guest]

Dear Pradeepji,

 

My heart is not at ease with what you have

inferred.For me it was never a personal

war or altercation.

I never make fun of those who do not provocate

me or use unnecessary language for me. Only

then it becomes a personal Ego match or

a worthy battle to win.

Believe me here its not at all any such type

of thought in my mind. I was just

enjoying in the start, but afterwards noticed

that you are all alone

with your theory, then my interest diminished

totally, and then onwards I just

wished to close the thread anyhow. But still

I have not questioned you seriously, but just

giving Praman all the time, to do the

speaking for itself,without me having to speak

much. I always enjoy a fair fight where there

are enough people to fight with in any argument.

 

Here I find you are the lone defender, and with

weak weapons, so for me, if you notice my chart,

I would never enjoy to argue,

for me Your case was lost, long back,

we are just continuing it unnecessarily.

I am very orthodox, in my thinking,

seated on a elephant, would like to

fight only with another seated on the same

seat. Or if my stomache is full, then would

make the opponents stomache full, then would

resume fighting (Astrologically) with him.

 

This case is too weak.

 

regards,

BHaskar.

 

 

, " Bhaskar " <bhaskar_jyotish

wrote:

>

> Dear Pradeepji,

>

> You have thought low about me.

> It is not acceptable. We are arguing only

> on jyotish points, and every second post I am

> getting the cue, that you may take it wrong, and

> finally did so. There is no fun for any

> good person in these matters.How and why

> should I make fun of you ? You have never done me

> any wrong , not my opponent in any way, have

> no grudges against you, but always respcted

> you for your knowledge.

>

> On the contrary i have been worrying for

> You, if you notice, i have been asking for close

> of the thread after every few mails, directly or

> indirectly,only so that you should not land in a

> tight corenr, with no suppoorters left, and with

> no strong theory to cling to.

>

> I thought that you are wise enough to feel this

> compassion from me in most of my mails towards

> you, but if you cannot sense this, then its my

> loss.

>

> best wishes,

> Bhaskar.

>

>

>

>

>

> , " Bhaskar " <bhaskar_jyotish@>

> wrote:

> >

> > Dear Pradeepji,

> >

> > It pains me that you can even think remotely,

> > that I could even think of making fun of You.

> >

> > We are all keeping patience at each other,

> > And it is a sad fact for me that you have still

> > not understood me,I was arguing on the points put

> > up, and not actually with You, as a person.

> >

> > Thanks, but you have kept patience,

> > all the same, better than most of us.

> >

> > regards,

> > Bhaskar.

> >

> >

> > , " vijayadas_pradeep "

> > <vijayadas_pradeep@> wrote:

> > >

> > > Dear Bhaskar ji

> > >

> > > You will have to understand that,i will nto have any problem if

some

> > > one is not accepting my views.But if some one is making fun of or

> > > giving childish kutarkas ,then it will certainyl pain

one.Especially

> > > when i have been debating this for the past 3-4 years.

> > >

> > > Don't you think once we accept that ,raoji uses charts,the issue is

> > > known to everyone.

> > >

> > > But if you give as if it is a new info -

> > >

> > > Pramana -1 K.N.Rao uses

> > >

> > > Praman-2 K.N.Rao uses

> > >

> > > Pramana -3 K.N.Rao uses

> > >

> > > Do i have to reply all the time.What is this discussion about ?

> > > Whether K.N.Raoji uses aspects or is it allowed as per classics.You

> > > yourself had said,if K.N.Raoji uses karakamsha in rashi it doesnt

> > > prove anything.I have to give Pramana.Then what is this Pramana

> > > business 1,2,3.It is really testing patience.

> > >

> > > Even if you do not accept my views,i would love if you can refer my

> > > name for Nobel prize -Patience in jyotish debates:-)

> > >

> > > Regds

> > > Pradeep

> > > , " Bhaskar " <bhaskar_jyotish@>

> > > wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Shri Pradeepji,

> > > >

> > > > You have tried to prove that many great astrologers do not

> > > > use navamsha charts and neither aspects. and

> > > > I HAVE PROVED , with various examples and refrences from

> > > > these same very astrologers about whom you were talking,that

> > > > they indeed do use aspects in navamsha, though some may

> > > > express this explicitly ,like in my examples of KN rao,

> > > > whereas some may express this in an subtle manner,like

> > > > in my example of Shri santhanamji.

> > > >

> > > > I think now you are taking this to heart.

> > > > Please do not take to heart. Debate or no debate on

> > > > this thread, I still have high regards for you.

> > > >

> > > > regards,

> > > > Bhaskar.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > , " vijayadas_pradeep "

> > > > <vijayadas_pradeep@> wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > > Dear Bhaskar ji

> > > > >

> > > > > ''Many Great astrologers may publicly not accept the

> > > authenticity of

> > > > > using aspects in Navamsha, but they still do''.

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > If this is your way of debating.Thank you very much.

> > > > >

> > > > > Regds

> > > > > Pradeep

> > > > >

> > > > > , " Bhaskar "

> > > > > <bhaskar_jyotish@> wrote:

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Shri Pradeepji,

> > > > > >

> > > > > > When we talk on debatable issues ,I mean controversial,

> > > > > > then we have to keep that issue, remained as so, only.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Many Great astrologers may publicly not accept the

> > > > > > authenticity of using aspects in Navamsha, but they

> > > > > > still do. I am not saying this is right, neither I

> > > > > > am saying this is wrong. Something which we cannot

> > > > > > prove we let it remain so, but would

> > > > > > never try to say that this is wrong, unless I

> > > > > > am able to provide pramana for the same. Which would

> > > > > > be difficult for me at least.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Any Doctor would say that its not right to

> > > > > > have safe delivery of a child at the house, but yet

> > > > > > if situation demands for whatever reason, he will go

> > > > > > the expectant mothers house, and get the delivery done.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > The shopkeeper may say that there is nothing connected to

> > > > > > leather, when he is selling a silver foil (Varka)to be put on

> > > > > > Chadhava -prasad (Mithai) of Mandir, but he may actually not

> > > know,

> > > > > > that the smoothness comes only by spreading the

> > > > > > silver and flattening on leather sheet, even if

> > > > > > he knows he will not accept publicly.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > A hotelier whose Sambhar is very tasty, may never tell

> > > > > > his clients who are Pure jains , that he is putting

> > > > > > a small amount of garlic (Which would be unnoticeable

> > > > > > apparently)in the Sambhar mix, but will make the

> > > > > > flavour good enough to make it real delicious.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Another point , man learns from experience,

> > > > > > so whatever any person (Including an astrologer)

> > > > > > says something at age of 30, he may have changed

> > > > > > views of the same at 45 or 60. So we never know

> > > > > > as of today,what may be ones view or perceptions

> > > > > > about a certain principle or application vis a vis

> > > > > > astrology related to the Great Seers of Modern day.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > In the latest example I have given from Shri

> > > > > > Santhanamjis books, the example was shown in the

> > > > > > navamsha Chart explaining the role of the 10th

> > > > > > lord of navamsha for profession. And in this example

> > > > > > he explained that because of Saturns aspect (Though

> > > > > > the word was not used)the native was into

> > > > > > Leather business and a shoe-maker. The Saturn

> > > > > > was aspecting alongwith Mercury, and Mercury is also

> > > > > > a Karaka for Leather business, he explained in that

> > > > > > article.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > In previous example too, in that post.

> > > > > > please read that way.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > I have uptil now, never said or accepted in a single post

> > > > > > that watching aspects is the right thing or the wrong thing,

> > > > > > if You note than please note. because my views do not

> > > > > > matter in front of these Giants. I just watch them and learn.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > I also accept that what i am reading today may be different

> > > > > > if I read in another book on same subject. So i do not

> > > > > > consider any of the authors as wrong. Yeh Duniya hai Bhai.

> > > > > > Someone likes Aloo sabji, someone Bhindi, someone

> > > > > > Paneer matar, and some one Baingan bharta. The point is

> > > > > > that Roti should go down the throat for body to

> > > > > > have strength to work, Roti may go with any sabzi which one

> > > > > > has taste for, does not matter.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > rest upto you.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Bhaskar.

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > > , " vijayadas_pradeep "

> > > > > > <vijayadas_pradeep@> wrote:

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Dear Prafulla ji

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > You are still not getting the point.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > 1)K.N.Raoji considers aspects as well as bhavas - But says

> > > > > > > Karakamsha has to be seen from Rashi.Shri Sanjay Rath says,

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > 2)Late Santhanam considers 7th from ,10th from etc from

> > > navamsha

> > > > > > > lagna in navamsha arrangement.But he says aspects cannot be

> > > seen

> > > > > > > there.Shri Bhaskar and you are missing this point and

> > > assuming

> > > > > those

> > > > > > > as aspects.He is clear regarding aspects.Pls try to

> > > understand

> > > > > why

> > > > > > > aspects are not possible.For this you have to try for

> > > > > yourslef,how

> > > > > > > navamsha is done.If you need any help in this regard ,i can

> > > take

> > > > > a

> > > > > > > chart and explain.But onyl if you want.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > For the same reason(considering them as a chart) ,Late

> > > Santhanam

> > > > > was

> > > > > > > unable to interpret shadvargake shloka.Sage is talking only

> > > > > about

> > > > > > > Lagnas shadvargas and not charts.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > In reality they all happen within Rashi chakra.Some

> > > recognize

> > > > > > > this ,but only in certain instances.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > As per the explanation from great grandfathers,it is very

> > > > > clear.If i

> > > > > > > follow their views i can understand each and every

shloka in

> > > > > BPHS

> > > > > > > without any concern.It is uptto you to choose your path.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Regds

> > > > > > > Pradeep

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > , " Prafulla Gang "

> > > <jyotish@>

> > > > > > > wrote:

> > > > > > > >

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

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > It is not the question of fixed mind or flexible mind.

> > > Mind

> > > > > > > accepts -

> > > > > > > > what he reads and hears.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > You have selectively referred Late Santhanam. First you

> > > were

> > > > > saying

> > > > > > > > there is no Navamsa chart; then Now you are referring his

> > > > > point of

> > > > > > > > view as navamsa chart and other D charts.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Also - Please read all three volumes and you will see it

> > > > > > > transparently

> > > > > > > > - that, Late Santhanam has provided cominations in D9

> > > charts,

> > > > > which

> > > > > > > > are not possible without aspects.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Also - I quoted you from his own articles in TOA issues.

> > > How

> > > > > can we

> > > > > > > > believe them to be contrary to his interpretation model.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Of course - it is your choice to reject those articles

and

> > > > > quoted

> > > > > > > > conversation; but it is not correct to misquote him

> > > > > selectively.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > At some stage - you say there is no D charts, slowly over

> > > the

> > > > > > > threads

> > > > > > > > - now you are saying there are D charts (quoting Late

> > > > > Santhanam) -

> > > > > > > but

> > > > > > > > do not have aspects. What is your clear perspective?

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > regards / Prafulla

> > > > > > > > , " vijayadas_pradeep "

> > > > > > > > <vijayadas_pradeep@> wrote:

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Dear Respected members

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > This message is for all those who have an open mind

> > > towards

> > > > > > > > > discussions.If you have already made up your mind

kindly

> > > > > ignore

> > > > > > > this

> > > > > > > > > mail.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Late Sri R. Santhanam states in his book Deva Keralam

> > > that "

> > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > aspect as a rule should be seen in rashi chart only,

not

> > > in

> > > > > > > navamsha

> > > > > > > > > and other charts, for aspects emanate only by

> > > longitudinal

> > > > > > > > > distances " .

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Thus we can see that,in BPHS as well as Devakeralam he

> > > has

> > > > > > > expressed

> > > > > > > > > his views.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > In Lagna shadvargake shloka,concerns did arise as he

> > > > > considerd

> > > > > > > them

> > > > > > > > > as a chart - while sage is talking about ''Lagnas

> > > > > shadvargas''

> > > > > > > which

> > > > > > > > > does not need a chart.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > I will share more case studies.Theory is part is enough

> > > and

> > > > > i

> > > > > > > hope

> > > > > > > > > we willnot say Late Santhanam was not clear regarding

> > > > > aspects.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Regds

> > > > > > > > > Pradeep

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > >

> >

>