Proof of apsects-Dwadamsha-Shri KN Rao -Pradeep's Model?

[Guest guest]

Dear Prafulla ji

 

Please don't call it pradeep's model.I am an ordinary sould learnign

jyotish.It is the model from Jyotish sages since

ages.Navamsha,Sapatamsha ,Lagna shadvaraga etc.

 

On the other hand charts are totally new models.It is not present

anywhere.But in todays internet world,for any student,pradeep is new

and all others are old.

 

Pls read the following -

 

''In her article in June 1986 the Astrological magazine, Smt Gayatri

Devi Vasudev states " the point is not to decry Parasari system has

having limitations but to stress that reckoning aspects in navamsha

too, and subjecting navamsha to an analysis similar to rashi seem to

make matters clearer " .

 

 

See this -It is pretyt clear that it is not possible to have aspects

as per Parashari system.But smt Vasudev says -considerign

aspects ''seem to make mattres clearer''

 

Thus if some one wants to use them if it seems to make clearer,they

are free to do so.I am just expressing my view.It is also a

presentation for thousands of students who wnats to see facts.

 

I want to follow Parashari system.It is upto you if you want to

experiment.

 

Regds

Pradeep

, " Prafulla Gang " <jyotish

wrote:

>

> Dear Bhaskar ji,

>

> There are huge references in writings of Shri KN Rao , Late Shri BV

> Raman, Shri CS Patel, Shri Sanjay Rath, Shri VK Choudhry, Late

> Santhanam to explain:

>

> a. there are D charts (contrary to Shri Pradeep's contention)

> b. D charts are interpreted as Rasi charts with houses /

combinations

> / aspects etc

>

> Yes - Navamsa dispositor / mapping to D1 lagna is also one of the

> method of Navamsa interpretation - but not the exhaustive method

9as

> contested by Shri Pradeep).

>

> Shri pradeep is talking about d9 only - what about other D charts -

> like d10, d81, d60 and so on? How does someone read those D

charts?

>

> Selective references of any book can never be conclusive proof of

> conformity - when Shri Pradeep is rejecting the very basis and

> interpretation of mentioned writers. Jyotish students must see the

> interpretation model of the above mentioned authors and make their

> judgment - if these astrologers go by Shri Pradeep's model.

>

> There may be difference of opinion amongst all or any of them - for

> interpretation of the jyotish principles; but on D charts - there

have

> never been any contradictions amongst them. So - to prove them

wrong -

> may be an early conclusion - without application on blind charts.

>

> Shri Pradeep referred to " likely " partial aspects of Kalyan Varma's

> reference - where he quoted aspects of sun and mercury; sun and

venus;

> venus and mercury. Can he show the application of partial aspects?

I

> have not yet seen any astrologer applying partial aspects as event

> indicator candidate. Reproducing theories and shloka can be a good

> premise to start - at some stage, they must be seen working? I

will be

> happy - if someone can demonstrate partial aspects - when sun is in

> libra and mercury is in virgo. and How they are used for

interpretation.

>

> Kalyan Varma was clear on aspects in D9. i do not think, at so many

> places - he was giving shlokas based upon partial aspects.

>

> This is endless debate with just repetitions of contentions. I will

> appreciate if selective or misleading references are avoided in the

> course of argument. I have full respect for the interpretation -

Shri

> pradeep might have. Since I do not know sanskrit, I am not

competent

> to comment on his translation.

>

> There is no question of truth or untruth; correct or incorrect -

but

> can all the above names be grossly wrong. Are we inferring that -

they

> did not do their homework properly !!

>

> regards / Prafulla

>

> , " Bhaskar " <bhaskar_jyotish@>

> wrote:

> >

> > One more proof by Shri KN Rao

> > of aspects being used in Divisional Charts-

> >

> > It is really funny. One should be well

> > read to enter into debates and

> > discussions. Only few are well read here

> > who may not be entirely present in this

> > debate., but come for short intervals

> > or do not come at all.

> >

> > Unfortunatly I am not finding

> > the right candidate with whom I can really

> > enjoy debating.No spark. Only one sided

> > game is being played here. There is no simple,

> > ample or even sample proof coming from any,

> > trying to defend their misplaced theories.

> > they are just talking on mundane matters.

> >

> > Anyway heres one more reference-

> >

> > Book named -

> > " Succesful Predictive Techniques of

> > Hindu Astrology " by KN Rao.

> >

> > Page 76 -

> > ---- But Saturn is placed in the 3rd in the birth horoscope

> > and also not merely in the 3rd in dwadamsha but with ketu

> > and is aspected by Mars from the 12th House-------

> >

> > ( The Dwadamsha Chart is given on the above page and

> > one may see this aspect in the Divisional Chart)

> >

> > Now hope no one calls this proof too, as a joke, myth or

> > Bhrama, mithya or Untruth.

> >

> > regards,

> > bhaskar.

> >

>

[Guest guest]

Dear Pradeep ji

 

This is new twist to the interpretation. Are we calling Vedic

astrology restricted to Sage Parashar.

 

Deva keralam is not Parashar's Jyotish. It is much older than that.

 

I do not think that Gayatri Devi Vasudev is conforming to your

interpretation model. Other better English readers - may correct me -

if required.

 

Personally speaking - I will like to wait for your case studies

(whenever it fits your schedule) - than just repeating arguments - at

the cost of members' time.

 

Like any jyotish student and explorer - each one has his choice to

adopt the reading model - whether Parashari, jaimini, KP, KAS, SA,

Nadi or any other methods.

 

I take this opportunity to wish you good luck in your jyotish pursuits.

 

regards / Prafulla

 

, " vijayadas_pradeep "

<vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

>

> Dear Prafulla ji

>

> Please don't call it pradeep's model.I am an ordinary sould learnign

> jyotish.It is the model from Jyotish sages since

> ages.Navamsha,Sapatamsha ,Lagna shadvaraga etc.

>

> On the other hand charts are totally new models.It is not present

> anywhere.But in todays internet world,for any student,pradeep is new

> and all others are old.

>

> Pls read the following -

>

> ''In her article in June 1986 the Astrological magazine, Smt Gayatri

> Devi Vasudev states " the point is not to decry Parasari system has

> having limitations but to stress that reckoning aspects in navamsha

> too, and subjecting navamsha to an analysis similar to rashi seem to

> make matters clearer " .

>

>

> See this -It is pretyt clear that it is not possible to have aspects

> as per Parashari system.But smt Vasudev says -considerign

> aspects ''seem to make mattres clearer''

>

> Thus if some one wants to use them if it seems to make clearer,they

> are free to do so.I am just expressing my view.It is also a

> presentation for thousands of students who wnats to see facts.

>

> I want to follow Parashari system.It is upto you if you want to

> experiment.

>

> Regds

> Pradeep

> , " Prafulla Gang " <jyotish@>

> wrote:

> >

> > Dear Bhaskar ji,

> >

> > There are huge references in writings of Shri KN Rao , Late Shri BV

> > Raman, Shri CS Patel, Shri Sanjay Rath, Shri VK Choudhry, Late

> > Santhanam to explain:

> >

> > a. there are D charts (contrary to Shri Pradeep's contention)

> > b. D charts are interpreted as Rasi charts with houses /

> combinations

> > / aspects etc

> >

> > Yes - Navamsa dispositor / mapping to D1 lagna is also one of the

> > method of Navamsa interpretation - but not the exhaustive method

> 9as

> > contested by Shri Pradeep).

> >

> > Shri pradeep is talking about d9 only - what about other D charts -

> > like d10, d81, d60 and so on? How does someone read those D

> charts?

> >

> > Selective references of any book can never be conclusive proof of

> > conformity - when Shri Pradeep is rejecting the very basis and

> > interpretation of mentioned writers. Jyotish students must see the

> > interpretation model of the above mentioned authors and make their

> > judgment - if these astrologers go by Shri Pradeep's model.

> >

> > There may be difference of opinion amongst all or any of them - for

> > interpretation of the jyotish principles; but on D charts - there

> have

> > never been any contradictions amongst them. So - to prove them

> wrong -

> > may be an early conclusion - without application on blind charts.

> >

> > Shri Pradeep referred to " likely " partial aspects of Kalyan Varma's

> > reference - where he quoted aspects of sun and mercury; sun and

> venus;

> > venus and mercury. Can he show the application of partial aspects?

> I

> > have not yet seen any astrologer applying partial aspects as event

> > indicator candidate. Reproducing theories and shloka can be a good

> > premise to start - at some stage, they must be seen working? I

> will be

> > happy - if someone can demonstrate partial aspects - when sun is in

> > libra and mercury is in virgo. and How they are used for

> interpretation.

> >

> > Kalyan Varma was clear on aspects in D9. i do not think, at so many

> > places - he was giving shlokas based upon partial aspects.

> >

> > This is endless debate with just repetitions of contentions. I will

> > appreciate if selective or misleading references are avoided in the

> > course of argument. I have full respect for the interpretation -

> Shri

> > pradeep might have. Since I do not know sanskrit, I am not

> competent

> > to comment on his translation.

> >

> > There is no question of truth or untruth; correct or incorrect -

> but

> > can all the above names be grossly wrong. Are we inferring that -

> they

> > did not do their homework properly !!

> >

> > regards / Prafulla

> >

> > , " Bhaskar " <bhaskar_jyotish@>

> > wrote:

> > >

> > > One more proof by Shri KN Rao

> > > of aspects being used in Divisional Charts-

> > >

> > > It is really funny. One should be well

> > > read to enter into debates and

> > > discussions. Only few are well read here

> > > who may not be entirely present in this

> > > debate., but come for short intervals

> > > or do not come at all.

> > >

> > > Unfortunatly I am not finding

> > > the right candidate with whom I can really

> > > enjoy debating.No spark. Only one sided

> > > game is being played here. There is no simple,

> > > ample or even sample proof coming from any,

> > > trying to defend their misplaced theories.

> > > they are just talking on mundane matters.

> > >

> > > Anyway heres one more reference-

> > >

> > > Book named -

> > > " Succesful Predictive Techniques of

> > > Hindu Astrology " by KN Rao.

> > >

> > > Page 76 -

> > > ---- But Saturn is placed in the 3rd in the birth horoscope

> > > and also not merely in the 3rd in dwadamsha but with ketu

> > > and is aspected by Mars from the 12th House-------

> > >

> > > ( The Dwadamsha Chart is given on the above page and

> > > one may see this aspect in the Divisional Chart)

> > >

> > > Now hope no one calls this proof too, as a joke, myth or

> > > Bhrama, mithya or Untruth.

> > >

> > > regards,

> > > bhaskar.

> > >

> >

>