Guest guest Posted July 12, 2007 Report Share Posted July 12, 2007 Vijaydas ji and all, It did not surprise me that my mail from yesterday made evryone rise in defense of all the past masters. The intent was not to belittle their contributions. They are great scholars and have made significant contributions to jyotish. But only the weight of evidence is acceptable in scientific enquiry. Vijaydas has raised the points and the contradictions in the writing of these masters. Only they can answer what they truly beleive. Peoples understanding chages over time. Please ask yourself 1. KN Rao uses aspects and houses in divisions and uses them as charts and many have given examples from his books. Then please ask yourself why does he move karakamsha back to rashi ? Is it because he did not beleive in D-charts then but beleives in them now ? I see a contradiction. May be as he eveolved in this field he may have come to different understandings. Thats why I said only he can answer this question NOT his books as some are written 15 years back and some more recently. Are we so confident without talking to him that his understanding has remained static for past 15 years ? 2. Santhanam, as some have pointed out used opposition etc. in D-9. Vijaydas has also pointed out that he had trouble with aspects in D-charts. Now don't you see a contradiction? Unfortunately we can not talk to Santhanam or BV Ramna now. I hope people undersatnd the point I am trying to convey. Science is not static, universe is not static and our understanding of jyotish also can not be static. Thanks Satish --- 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 > ______________________________\ ____ Need a vacation? Get great deals to amazing places on Travel. http://travel./ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 12, 2007 Report Share Posted July 12, 2007 Dear Sateesh ji and Pradeep ji, do you agree with existance of Divisional charts like D-10, D-12, D-30, D-81, D-108 etc.. So if you agree with existence of these charts then how to connect them to D-1. and even if these charts exist then how they are formed ?? Since the planet in trines in D-1, can be find out in conjuction in D- 9, and planets in tines in D-9 can be find in conjuction in higher division too. like D=9 trines conjuct in D-27. Plz spread some light on it. Regards, Tarun , SPK <aquaris_rising wrote: > > Vijaydas ji and all, > > It did not surprise me that my mail from yesterday > made evryone rise in defense of all the past masters. > The intent was not to belittle their contributions. > They are great scholars and have made significant > contributions to jyotish. But only the weight of > evidence is acceptable in scientific enquiry. > > Vijaydas has raised the points and the contradictions > in the writing of these masters. Only they can answer > what they truly beleive. Peoples understanding chages > over time. Please ask yourself > > 1. KN Rao uses aspects and houses in divisions and > uses them as charts and many have given examples from > his books. Then please ask yourself why does he move > karakamsha back to rashi ? Is it because he did not > beleive in D-charts then but beleives in them now ? I > see a contradiction. May be as he eveolved in this > field he may have come to different understandings. > Thats why I said only he can answer this question NOT > his books as some are written 15 years back and some > more recently. Are we so confident without talking to > him that his understanding has remained static for > past 15 years ? > > 2. Santhanam, as some have pointed out used opposition > etc. in D-9. Vijaydas has also pointed out that he had > trouble with aspects in D-charts. Now don't you see a > contradiction? Unfortunately we can not talk to > Santhanam or BV Ramna now. > > I hope people undersatnd the point I am trying to > convey. Science is not static, universe is not static > and our understanding of jyotish also can not be > static. > > Thanks > > Satish > --- 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 > > > > > > > ____________________ ______________ > Need a vacation? Get great deals > to amazing places on Travel. > http://travel./ > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 12, 2007 Report Share Posted July 12, 2007 Dear Sri Satish, For your information, Sri KN Rao uses aspects, bhavas and houses in amsa charts extensively, even today. It is evident from his articles published a few days ago, which I gave reference in this list earlier. From my understanding he doesn't adopt the classics AS IS; since he several times insisted, the CRF approach; time and again he says - take a classical principle, apply it on hundreds if not thousands of horoscopes and use it with confidence. I am just reiterating which I mentioned earlier; this is not something he told 15 yrs ago and stopped practicing today. Even today's articles from him also speak the same way. I am not his spokesman; but I have read almost all of his publications (nearly 90% or more his publiscations). With respect to great astrologers like him and Dr Raman, we SHOULD TAKE THEIR BOOKS AS PRAMAANAS. They do not change their words according to convenience; rather, they say it only when they are confident, after thorough research. Best regards, Satya Sai Kolachina , SPK <aquaris_rising wrote: > > Vijaydas ji and all, > > It did not surprise me that my mail from yesterday > made evryone rise in defense of all the past masters. > The intent was not to belittle their contributions. > They are great scholars and have made significant > contributions to jyotish. But only the weight of > evidence is acceptable in scientific enquiry. > > Vijaydas has raised the points and the contradictions > in the writing of these masters. Only they can answer > what they truly beleive. Peoples understanding chages > over time. Please ask yourself > > 1. KN Rao uses aspects and houses in divisions and > uses them as charts and many have given examples from > his books. Then please ask yourself why does he move > karakamsha back to rashi ? Is it because he did not > beleive in D-charts then but beleives in them now ? I > see a contradiction. May be as he eveolved in this > field he may have come to different understandings. > Thats why I said only he can answer this question NOT > his books as some are written 15 years back and some > more recently. Are we so confident without talking to > him that his understanding has remained static for > past 15 years ? > > 2. Santhanam, as some have pointed out used opposition > etc. in D-9. Vijaydas has also pointed out that he had > trouble with aspects in D-charts. Now don't you see a > contradiction? Unfortunately we can not talk to > Santhanam or BV Ramna now. > > I hope people undersatnd the point I am trying to > convey. Science is not static, universe is not static > and our understanding of jyotish also can not be > static. > > Thanks > > Satish > --- 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 > > > > > > > ____________________ ______________ > Need a vacation? Get great deals > to amazing places on Travel. > http://travel./ > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 12, 2007 Report Share Posted July 12, 2007 //With respect to great astrologers like him and Dr Raman, we SHOULD TAKE THEIR BOOKS AS PRAMAANAS. They do not change their words according to convenience; rather, they say it only when they are confident, after thorough research. // Beautifully said. regards/Bhaskar. , " Satya Sai Kolachina " <skolachi wrote: > > Dear Sri Satish, > > For your information, Sri KN Rao uses aspects, bhavas and houses in > amsa charts extensively, even today. It is evident from his articles > published a few days ago, which I gave reference in this list > earlier. From my understanding he doesn't adopt the classics AS IS; > since he several times insisted, the CRF approach; time and again he > says - take a classical principle, apply it on hundreds if not > thousands of horoscopes and use it with confidence. I am just > reiterating which I mentioned earlier; this is not something he told > 15 yrs ago and stopped practicing today. Even today's articles from > him also speak the same way. I am not his spokesman; but I have read > almost all of his publications (nearly 90% or more his > publiscations). > > With respect to great astrologers like him and Dr Raman, we SHOULD > TAKE THEIR BOOKS AS PRAMAANAS. They do not change their words > according to convenience; rather, they say it only when they are > confident, after thorough research. > > Best regards, > Satya Sai Kolachina > > > , SPK <aquaris_rising@> wrote: > > > > Vijaydas ji and all, > > > > It did not surprise me that my mail from yesterday > > made evryone rise in defense of all the past masters. > > The intent was not to belittle their contributions. > > They are great scholars and have made significant > > contributions to jyotish. But only the weight of > > evidence is acceptable in scientific enquiry. > > > > Vijaydas has raised the points and the contradictions > > in the writing of these masters. Only they can answer > > what they truly beleive. Peoples understanding chages > > over time. Please ask yourself > > > > 1. KN Rao uses aspects and houses in divisions and > > uses them as charts and many have given examples from > > his books. Then please ask yourself why does he move > > karakamsha back to rashi ? Is it because he did not > > beleive in D-charts then but beleives in them now ? I > > see a contradiction. May be as he eveolved in this > > field he may have come to different understandings. > > Thats why I said only he can answer this question NOT > > his books as some are written 15 years back and some > > more recently. Are we so confident without talking to > > him that his understanding has remained static for > > past 15 years ? > > > > 2. Santhanam, as some have pointed out used opposition > > etc. in D-9. Vijaydas has also pointed out that he had > > trouble with aspects in D-charts. Now don't you see a > > contradiction? Unfortunately we can not talk to > > Santhanam or BV Ramna now. > > > > I hope people undersatnd the point I am trying to > > convey. Science is not static, universe is not static > > and our understanding of jyotish also can not be > > static. > > > > Thanks > > > > Satish > > --- 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 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ____________________ > ______________ > > Need a vacation? Get great deals > > to amazing places on Travel. > > http://travel./ > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 12, 2007 Report Share Posted July 12, 2007 Dear Satyaji, Yes I agree he uses D-charts. I still do not understand then why move karakamsha back to rashi ? Do you see the diachotomy here? If one can use D-9 as a chrt whats the need to move karakamsha which is navansha of AK back to rashi. Why ? Satish --- Satya Sai Kolachina <skolachi wrote: > Dear Sri Satish, > > For your information, Sri KN Rao uses aspects, > bhavas and houses in > amsa charts extensively, even today. It is evident > from his articles > published a few days ago, which I gave reference in > this list > earlier. From my understanding he doesn't adopt the > classics AS IS; > since he several times insisted, the CRF approach; > time and again he > says - take a classical principle, apply it on > hundreds if not > thousands of horoscopes and use it with confidence. > I am just > reiterating which I mentioned earlier; this is not > something he told > 15 yrs ago and stopped practicing today. Even > today's articles from > him also speak the same way. I am not his spokesman; > but I have read > almost all of his publications (nearly 90% or more > his > publiscations). > > With respect to great astrologers like him and Dr > Raman, we SHOULD > TAKE THEIR BOOKS AS PRAMAANAS. They do not change > their words > according to convenience; rather, they say it only > when they are > confident, after thorough research. > > Best regards, > Satya Sai Kolachina > > > , SPK > <aquaris_rising wrote: > > > > Vijaydas ji and all, > > > > It did not surprise me that my mail from yesterday > > made evryone rise in defense of all the past > masters. > > The intent was not to belittle their > contributions. > > They are great scholars and have made significant > > contributions to jyotish. But only the weight of > > evidence is acceptable in scientific enquiry. > > > > Vijaydas has raised the points and the > contradictions > > in the writing of these masters. Only they can > answer > > what they truly beleive. Peoples understanding > chages > > over time. Please ask yourself > > > > 1. KN Rao uses aspects and houses in divisions and > > uses them as charts and many have given examples > from > > his books. Then please ask yourself why does he > move > > karakamsha back to rashi ? Is it because he did > not > > beleive in D-charts then but beleives in them now > ? I > > see a contradiction. May be as he eveolved in this > > field he may have come to different > understandings. > > Thats why I said only he can answer this question > NOT > > his books as some are written 15 years back and > some > > more recently. Are we so confident without talking > to > > him that his understanding has remained static for > > past 15 years ? > > > > 2. Santhanam, as some have pointed out used > opposition > > etc. in D-9. Vijaydas has also pointed out that he > had > > trouble with aspects in D-charts. Now don't you > see a > > contradiction? Unfortunately we can not talk to > > Santhanam or BV Ramna now. > > > > I hope people undersatnd the point I am trying to > > convey. Science is not static, universe is not > static > > and our understanding of jyotish also can not be > > static. > > > > Thanks > > > > Satish > > --- 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 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ____________________ > ______________ > > Need a vacation? Get great deals > > to amazing places on Travel. > > http://travel./ > > > > > ______________________________\ ____ oneSearch: Finally, mobile search that gives answers, not web links. http://mobile./mobileweb/onesearch?refer=1ONXIC Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 12, 2007 Report Share Posted July 12, 2007 Tarunji, The divisions exist there is no argument there.To use divisions as Charts, there is no classical pramana. So to answer your question, NO there currently no compelling evidence presented/unearthed that suggest use of these divisions as CHARTS. Satish --- Tarun <tarun.virgo wrote: > Dear Sateesh ji and Pradeep ji, > > do you agree with existance of Divisional charts > like > > D-10, D-12, D-30, D-81, D-108 etc.. > > So if you agree with existence of these charts then > how to connect > them to D-1. > > and even if these charts exist then how they are > formed ?? > > Since the planet in trines in D-1, can be find out > in conjuction in D- > 9, > > and planets in tines in D-9 can be find in > conjuction in higher > division too. > like D=9 trines conjuct in D-27. > > Plz spread some light on it. > Regards, > Tarun > > > , SPK > <aquaris_rising wrote: > > > > Vijaydas ji and all, > > > > It did not surprise me that my mail from yesterday > > made evryone rise in defense of all the past > masters. > > The intent was not to belittle their > contributions. > > They are great scholars and have made significant > > contributions to jyotish. But only the weight of > > evidence is acceptable in scientific enquiry. > > > > Vijaydas has raised the points and the > contradictions > > in the writing of these masters. Only they can > answer > > what they truly beleive. Peoples understanding > chages > > over time. Please ask yourself > > > > 1. KN Rao uses aspects and houses in divisions and > > uses them as charts and many have given examples > from > > his books. Then please ask yourself why does he > move > > karakamsha back to rashi ? Is it because he did > not > > beleive in D-charts then but beleives in them now > ? I > > see a contradiction. May be as he eveolved in this > > field he may have come to different > understandings. > > Thats why I said only he can answer this question > NOT > > his books as some are written 15 years back and > some > > more recently. Are we so confident without talking > to > > him that his understanding has remained static for > > past 15 years ? > > > > 2. Santhanam, as some have pointed out used > opposition > > etc. in D-9. Vijaydas has also pointed out that he > had > > trouble with aspects in D-charts. Now don't you > see a > > contradiction? Unfortunately we can not talk to > > Santhanam or BV Ramna now. > > > > I hope people undersatnd the point I am trying to > > convey. Science is not static, universe is not > static > > and our understanding of jyotish also can not be > > static. > > > > Thanks > > > > Satish > > --- 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 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ____________________ > ______________ > > Need a vacation? Get great deals > > to amazing places on Travel. > > http://travel./ > > > > > ______________________________\ ____ Boardwalk for $500? In 2007? Ha! Play Monopoly Here and Now (it's updated for today's economy) at Games. http://get.games./proddesc?gamekey=monopolyherenow Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 12, 2007 Report Share Posted July 12, 2007 Dear Sri Satish, If my understanding of his approach is correct, he is a practical astrologer, who worked very hard to elevate astrology to the level of teaching in the Universities as a Science, and he succeeded undoubtedly. For him blind application of a principle from classics is not the approach; he always insisted on statistical analysis of applying rules on multitude of horoscopes and the result of this approach should drive us whether to continue with the rule, or drop it out. His approach seems to be not something you or Sri Pradeep is trying to do. He uses a principle if it works, will not use it if doesn't work; just for the fact that it is mentioned in one of the classics, he doesn't use it. All his recommendations come from thorough research and statistical analysis; he encourages all his students to do so. I have to assume the that he applied the same approach to use the Karakamsa Rasi in rasi chart rather than navamsa chart. If you read his book on Karakamsa you will understand it well. The argument he presented there is not the same argument that you or Sri Pradeep is presenting. In fact, he insists us to analyze the horoscope from different angles, even using different dasa systems before pronouncing final prediction. This is what he terms as composite approach. The word composite approach is not my own discovery. It was him who recommended through his publications. On Karakamsa, my personal experience gives me enough evidence that total dependence on either Rasi chart or navamsa chart will not give complete picture. Of course, this is my experience and not said by Sri KN Rao in his books. In fact, I have referred to some of the shlokas and their translation in the currently availbale BPHS translation with me during this debate, and I am not convinced with the uni-directional interpretation being presented by Sri Pradeep. In my own horoscope, if I apply Karakamsa on the rasi chart I get feeble indications whereas applying on navamsa chart give me striking results. Please note that I am really not interested to reopen the discussion, because I am tired. The important point of my interest in Sri KN Rao's approach is to establish a reasonably dependable approach to make predictions. This is the very reason I have been contradicting you or Sri Pradeep in the approach. I do not insist a technique to be present in the classics (in their current form). I have my reasons to believe that currently available classics are not necessarily the sole authority on the subject. Best regards, Satya S Kolachina , SPK <aquaris_rising wrote: > > Dear Satyaji, > > Yes I agree he uses D-charts. I still do not > understand then why move karakamsha back to rashi ? Do > you see the diachotomy here? If one can use D-9 as a > chrt whats the need to move karakamsha which is > navansha of AK back to rashi. Why ? > > Satish > --- Satya Sai Kolachina <skolachi wrote: > > > Dear Sri Satish, > > > > For your information, Sri KN Rao uses aspects, > > bhavas and houses in > > amsa charts extensively, even today. It is evident > > from his articles > > published a few days ago, which I gave reference in > > this list > > earlier. From my understanding he doesn't adopt the > > classics AS IS; > > since he several times insisted, the CRF approach; > > time and again he > > says - take a classical principle, apply it on > > hundreds if not > > thousands of horoscopes and use it with confidence. > > I am just > > reiterating which I mentioned earlier; this is not > > something he told > > 15 yrs ago and stopped practicing today. Even > > today's articles from > > him also speak the same way. I am not his spokesman; > > but I have read > > almost all of his publications (nearly 90% or more > > his > > publiscations). > > > > With respect to great astrologers like him and Dr > > Raman, we SHOULD > > TAKE THEIR BOOKS AS PRAMAANAS. They do not change > > their words > > according to convenience; rather, they say it only > > when they are > > confident, after thorough research. > > > > Best regards, > > Satya Sai Kolachina > > > > > > , SPK > > <aquaris_rising@> wrote: > > > > > > Vijaydas ji and all, > > > > > > It did not surprise me that my mail from yesterday > > > made evryone rise in defense of all the past > > masters. > > > The intent was not to belittle their > > contributions. > > > They are great scholars and have made significant > > > contributions to jyotish. But only the weight of > > > evidence is acceptable in scientific enquiry. > > > > > > Vijaydas has raised the points and the > > contradictions > > > in the writing of these masters. Only they can > > answer > > > what they truly beleive. Peoples understanding > > chages > > > over time. Please ask yourself > > > > > > 1. KN Rao uses aspects and houses in divisions and > > > uses them as charts and many have given examples > > from > > > his books. Then please ask yourself why does he > > move > > > karakamsha back to rashi ? Is it because he did > > not > > > beleive in D-charts then but beleives in them now > > ? I > > > see a contradiction. May be as he eveolved in this > > > field he may have come to different > > understandings. > > > Thats why I said only he can answer this question > > NOT > > > his books as some are written 15 years back and > > some > > > more recently. Are we so confident without talking > > to > > > him that his understanding has remained static for > > > past 15 years ? > > > > > > 2. Santhanam, as some have pointed out used > > opposition > > > etc. in D-9. Vijaydas has also pointed out that he > > had > > > trouble with aspects in D-charts. Now don't you > > see a > > > contradiction? Unfortunately we can not talk to > > > Santhanam or BV Ramna now. > > > > > > I hope people undersatnd the point I am trying to > > > convey. Science is not static, universe is not > > static > > > and our understanding of jyotish also can not be > > > static. > > > > > > Thanks > > > > > > Satish > > > --- 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 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ___________________ _ > > ______________ > > > Need a vacation? Get great deals > > > to amazing places on Travel. > > > http://travel./ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ___________________ _______________ > oneSearch: Finally, mobile search > that gives answers, not web links. > http://mobile./mobileweb/onesearch?refer=1ONXIC > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 12, 2007 Report Share Posted July 12, 2007 Dear Sateesh ji and Pradeep ji, do you agree with existance of Divisions like D-10, D-12, D-30, D-81, D-108 etc.. So if you agree with existence of these then how to connect them to D-1. and even if these exist then how they are formed ?? Since the planet in trines in D-1, can be find out in conjuction in D- 9, and planets in tines in D-9 can be find in conjuction in higher division too. like D=9 trines conjuct in D-27. Plz spread some light on it. Regards, Tarun , " Tarun " <tarun.virgo wrote: > > Dear Sateesh ji and Pradeep ji, > > do you agree with existance of Divisional charts like > > D-10, D-12, D-30, D-81, D-108 etc.. > > So if you agree with existence of these charts then how to connect > them to D-1. > > and even if these charts exist then how they are formed ?? > > Since the planet in trines in D-1, can be find out in conjuction in D- > 9, > > and planets in tines in D-9 can be find in conjuction in higher > division too. > like D=9 trines conjuct in D-27. > > Plz spread some light on it. > Regards, > Tarun > > > , SPK <aquaris_rising@> wrote: > > > > Vijaydas ji and all, > > > > It did not surprise me that my mail from yesterday > > made evryone rise in defense of all the past masters. > > The intent was not to belittle their contributions. > > They are great scholars and have made significant > > contributions to jyotish. But only the weight of > > evidence is acceptable in scientific enquiry. > > > > Vijaydas has raised the points and the contradictions > > in the writing of these masters. Only they can answer > > what they truly beleive. Peoples understanding chages > > over time. Please ask yourself > > > > 1. KN Rao uses aspects and houses in divisions and > > uses them as charts and many have given examples from > > his books. Then please ask yourself why does he move > > karakamsha back to rashi ? Is it because he did not > > beleive in D-charts then but beleives in them now ? I > > see a contradiction. May be as he eveolved in this > > field he may have come to different understandings. > > Thats why I said only he can answer this question NOT > > his books as some are written 15 years back and some > > more recently. Are we so confident without talking to > > him that his understanding has remained static for > > past 15 years ? > > > > 2. Santhanam, as some have pointed out used opposition > > etc. in D-9. Vijaydas has also pointed out that he had > > trouble with aspects in D-charts. Now don't you see a > > contradiction? Unfortunately we can not talk to > > Santhanam or BV Ramna now. > > > > I hope people undersatnd the point I am trying to > > convey. Science is not static, universe is not static > > and our understanding of jyotish also can not be > > static. > > > > Thanks > > > > Satish > > --- 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 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ____________________ > ______________ > > Need a vacation? Get great deals > > to amazing places on Travel. > > http://travel./ > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 12, 2007 Report Share Posted July 12, 2007 Dear Satya ji, I again agree with you. and the best should be put forwarded. As these mails are going to be a part of history in internet astrology and learning and so future student may not get distacted from the real astrology. Regards, Tarun , " Satya Sai Kolachina " <skolachi wrote: > > Dear Sri Satish, > > If my understanding of his approach is correct, he is a practical > astrologer, who worked very hard to elevate astrology to the level > of teaching in the Universities as a Science, and he succeeded > undoubtedly. > > For him blind application of a principle from classics is not the > approach; he always insisted on statistical analysis of applying > rules on multitude of horoscopes and the result of this approach > should drive us whether to continue with the rule, or drop it out. > His approach seems to be not something you or Sri Pradeep is trying > to do. He uses a principle if it works, will not use it if doesn't > work; just for the fact that it is mentioned in one of the classics, > he doesn't use it. All his recommendations come from thorough > research and statistical analysis; he encourages all his students to > do so. > > I have to assume the that he applied the same approach to use the > Karakamsa Rasi in rasi chart rather than navamsa chart. If you read > his book on Karakamsa you will understand it well. The argument he > presented there is not the same argument that you or Sri Pradeep is > presenting. > > In fact, he insists us to analyze the horoscope from different > angles, even using different dasa systems before pronouncing final > prediction. This is what he terms as composite approach. The word > composite approach is not my own discovery. It was him who > recommended through his publications. > > On Karakamsa, my personal experience gives me enough evidence that > total dependence on either Rasi chart or navamsa chart will not give > complete picture. Of course, this is my experience and not said by > Sri KN Rao in his books. In fact, I have referred to some of the > shlokas and their translation in the currently availbale BPHS > translation with me during this debate, and I am not convinced with > the uni-directional interpretation being presented by Sri Pradeep. > In my own horoscope, if I apply Karakamsa on the rasi chart I get > feeble indications whereas applying on navamsa chart give me > striking results. Please note that I am really not interested to > reopen the discussion, because I am tired. > > The important point of my interest in Sri KN Rao's approach is to > establish a reasonably dependable approach to make predictions. This > is the very reason I have been contradicting you or Sri Pradeep in > the approach. I do not insist a technique to be present in the > classics (in their current form). I have my reasons to believe that > currently available classics are not necessarily the sole authority > on the subject. > > > Best regards, > > Satya S Kolachina > > , SPK <aquaris_rising@> wrote: > > > > Dear Satyaji, > > > > Yes I agree he uses D-charts. I still do not > > understand then why move karakamsha back to rashi ? Do > > you see the diachotomy here? If one can use D-9 as a > > chrt whats the need to move karakamsha which is > > navansha of AK back to rashi. Why ? > > > > Satish > > --- Satya Sai Kolachina <skolachi@> wrote: > > > > > Dear Sri Satish, > > > > > > For your information, Sri KN Rao uses aspects, > > > bhavas and houses in > > > amsa charts extensively, even today. It is evident > > > from his articles > > > published a few days ago, which I gave reference in > > > this list > > > earlier. From my understanding he doesn't adopt the > > > classics AS IS; > > > since he several times insisted, the CRF approach; > > > time and again he > > > says - take a classical principle, apply it on > > > hundreds if not > > > thousands of horoscopes and use it with confidence. > > > I am just > > > reiterating which I mentioned earlier; this is not > > > something he told > > > 15 yrs ago and stopped practicing today. Even > > > today's articles from > > > him also speak the same way. I am not his spokesman; > > > but I have read > > > almost all of his publications (nearly 90% or more > > > his > > > publiscations). > > > > > > With respect to great astrologers like him and Dr > > > Raman, we SHOULD > > > TAKE THEIR BOOKS AS PRAMAANAS. They do not change > > > their words > > > according to convenience; rather, they say it only > > > when they are > > > confident, after thorough research. > > > > > > Best regards, > > > Satya Sai Kolachina > > > > > > > > > , SPK > > > <aquaris_rising@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Vijaydas ji and all, > > > > > > > > It did not surprise me that my mail from yesterday > > > > made evryone rise in defense of all the past > > > masters. > > > > The intent was not to belittle their > > > contributions. > > > > They are great scholars and have made significant > > > > contributions to jyotish. But only the weight of > > > > evidence is acceptable in scientific enquiry. > > > > > > > > Vijaydas has raised the points and the > > > contradictions > > > > in the writing of these masters. Only they can > > > answer > > > > what they truly beleive. Peoples understanding > > > chages > > > > over time. Please ask yourself > > > > > > > > 1. KN Rao uses aspects and houses in divisions and > > > > uses them as charts and many have given examples > > > from > > > > his books. Then please ask yourself why does he > > > move > > > > karakamsha back to rashi ? Is it because he did > > > not > > > > beleive in D-charts then but beleives in them now > > > ? I > > > > see a contradiction. May be as he eveolved in this > > > > field he may have come to different > > > understandings. > > > > Thats why I said only he can answer this question > > > NOT > > > > his books as some are written 15 years back and > > > some > > > > more recently. Are we so confident without talking > > > to > > > > him that his understanding has remained static for > > > > past 15 years ? > > > > > > > > 2. Santhanam, as some have pointed out used > > > opposition > > > > etc. in D-9. Vijaydas has also pointed out that he > > > had > > > > trouble with aspects in D-charts. Now don't you > > > see a > > > > contradiction? Unfortunately we can not talk to > > > > Santhanam or BV Ramna now. > > > > > > > > I hope people undersatnd the point I am trying to > > > > convey. Science is not static, universe is not > > > static > > > > and our understanding of jyotish also can not be > > > > static. > > > > > > > > Thanks > > > > > > > > Satish > > > > --- 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 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ___________________ > _ > > > ______________ > > > > Need a vacation? Get great deals > > > > to amazing places on Travel. > > > > http://travel./ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ___________________ > _______________ > > oneSearch: Finally, mobile search > > that gives answers, not web links. > > http://mobile./mobileweb/onesearch?refer=1ONXIC > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 12, 2007 Report Share Posted July 12, 2007 Dear Satya ji I have clealry mentioned that,i have no problem if Raoji feels aspects or bhavas are needed in varga charts,for prediction. My concern is whether as per fundamentals such a thing is possible or not.It is not possible as per BPHS. Thus for me ,my apparoach will be to see if rashi chakra,other strengths, and vargamshas are sufficient to arrive at predictions or not.So far i have got satisfactory results over a number of charts. I would like to strictly follow basics.This is my approach and i cannot say Raoji or other scholars should have the same style. Hope it is clear now. Regds Pradeep , " Satya Sai Kolachina " <skolachi wrote: > > Dear Sri Satish, > > If my understanding of his approach is correct, he is a practical > astrologer, who worked very hard to elevate astrology to the level > of teaching in the Universities as a Science, and he succeeded > undoubtedly. > > For him blind application of a principle from classics is not the > approach; he always insisted on statistical analysis of applying > rules on multitude of horoscopes and the result of this approach > should drive us whether to continue with the rule, or drop it out. > His approach seems to be not something you or Sri Pradeep is trying > to do. He uses a principle if it works, will not use it if doesn't > work; just for the fact that it is mentioned in one of the classics, > he doesn't use it. All his recommendations come from thorough > research and statistical analysis; he encourages all his students to > do so. > > I have to assume the that he applied the same approach to use the > Karakamsa Rasi in rasi chart rather than navamsa chart. If you read > his book on Karakamsa you will understand it well. The argument he > presented there is not the same argument that you or Sri Pradeep is > presenting. > > In fact, he insists us to analyze the horoscope from different > angles, even using different dasa systems before pronouncing final > prediction. This is what he terms as composite approach. The word > composite approach is not my own discovery. It was him who > recommended through his publications. > > On Karakamsa, my personal experience gives me enough evidence that > total dependence on either Rasi chart or navamsa chart will not give > complete picture. Of course, this is my experience and not said by > Sri KN Rao in his books. In fact, I have referred to some of the > shlokas and their translation in the currently availbale BPHS > translation with me during this debate, and I am not convinced with > the uni-directional interpretation being presented by Sri Pradeep. > In my own horoscope, if I apply Karakamsa on the rasi chart I get > feeble indications whereas applying on navamsa chart give me > striking results. Please note that I am really not interested to > reopen the discussion, because I am tired. > > The important point of my interest in Sri KN Rao's approach is to > establish a reasonably dependable approach to make predictions. This > is the very reason I have been contradicting you or Sri Pradeep in > the approach. I do not insist a technique to be present in the > classics (in their current form). I have my reasons to believe that > currently available classics are not necessarily the sole authority > on the subject. > > > Best regards, > > Satya S Kolachina > > , SPK <aquaris_rising@> wrote: > > > > Dear Satyaji, > > > > Yes I agree he uses D-charts. I still do not > > understand then why move karakamsha back to rashi ? Do > > you see the diachotomy here? If one can use D-9 as a > > chrt whats the need to move karakamsha which is > > navansha of AK back to rashi. Why ? > > > > Satish > > --- Satya Sai Kolachina <skolachi@> wrote: > > > > > Dear Sri Satish, > > > > > > For your information, Sri KN Rao uses aspects, > > > bhavas and houses in > > > amsa charts extensively, even today. It is evident > > > from his articles > > > published a few days ago, which I gave reference in > > > this list > > > earlier. From my understanding he doesn't adopt the > > > classics AS IS; > > > since he several times insisted, the CRF approach; > > > time and again he > > > says - take a classical principle, apply it on > > > hundreds if not > > > thousands of horoscopes and use it with confidence. > > > I am just > > > reiterating which I mentioned earlier; this is not > > > something he told > > > 15 yrs ago and stopped practicing today. Even > > > today's articles from > > > him also speak the same way. I am not his spokesman; > > > but I have read > > > almost all of his publications (nearly 90% or more > > > his > > > publiscations). > > > > > > With respect to great astrologers like him and Dr > > > Raman, we SHOULD > > > TAKE THEIR BOOKS AS PRAMAANAS. They do not change > > > their words > > > according to convenience; rather, they say it only > > > when they are > > > confident, after thorough research. > > > > > > Best regards, > > > Satya Sai Kolachina > > > > > > > > > , SPK > > > <aquaris_rising@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Vijaydas ji and all, > > > > > > > > It did not surprise me that my mail from yesterday > > > > made evryone rise in defense of all the past > > > masters. > > > > The intent was not to belittle their > > > contributions. > > > > They are great scholars and have made significant > > > > contributions to jyotish. But only the weight of > > > > evidence is acceptable in scientific enquiry. > > > > > > > > Vijaydas has raised the points and the > > > contradictions > > > > in the writing of these masters. Only they can > > > answer > > > > what they truly beleive. Peoples understanding > > > chages > > > > over time. Please ask yourself > > > > > > > > 1. KN Rao uses aspects and houses in divisions and > > > > uses them as charts and many have given examples > > > from > > > > his books. Then please ask yourself why does he > > > move > > > > karakamsha back to rashi ? Is it because he did > > > not > > > > beleive in D-charts then but beleives in them now > > > ? I > > > > see a contradiction. May be as he eveolved in this > > > > field he may have come to different > > > understandings. > > > > Thats why I said only he can answer this question > > > NOT > > > > his books as some are written 15 years back and > > > some > > > > more recently. Are we so confident without talking > > > to > > > > him that his understanding has remained static for > > > > past 15 years ? > > > > > > > > 2. Santhanam, as some have pointed out used > > > opposition > > > > etc. in D-9. Vijaydas has also pointed out that he > > > had > > > > trouble with aspects in D-charts. Now don't you > > > see a > > > > contradiction? Unfortunately we can not talk to > > > > Santhanam or BV Ramna now. > > > > > > > > I hope people undersatnd the point I am trying to > > > > convey. Science is not static, universe is not > > > static > > > > and our understanding of jyotish also can not be > > > > static. > > > > > > > > Thanks > > > > > > > > Satish > > > > --- 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 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ___________________ > _ > > > ______________ > > > > Need a vacation? Get great deals > > > > to amazing places on Travel. > > > > http://travel./ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ___________________ > _______________ > > oneSearch: Finally, mobile search > > that gives answers, not web links. > > http://mobile./mobileweb/onesearch?refer=1ONXIC > > > 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.