Varge as Plural - Shloka number and Link-Lagna Shadvargake

July 27, 2007

, Chandrashekhar

<chandrashekhar46 wrote:

>

> Dear Pradeep,

>

> Can you point to the rules set forth by Santanam and BPHS that you

refer

> to?

>

> I have not changed my opinion on whether to see aspects in D-charts

or

> not and also when to see them and when to see Graha drishti and

when to

> see rashi drishti, if you see my earlier mails. I do not think I

have

> accepted that graha drishti should be accepted across all the

divisional

> charts on the basis of this shloka. Or did I?

>

> Actually the whole debate began when I said that when specifically

> mentioned by sages one should see the aspects, in answer to which

you

> said that no sage had given any such rules. If I remember right you

went

> on to ask me to show where any sage has talked about aspects in

> D-Charts. I, only, am giving instances where sages and ancient

texts do

> talk about aspects in the D-charts.

>

> Again merely because I look at the thing differently does not mean

that

> I must claim that no other text has said that. Many other texts

have

> talked about aspects in D-chart, or the shlokas therein imply that

if

> not outright say the same. At my age it is difficult to sift

through

> more than about 100 or texts that I have ( some of them so brittle,

I do

> not risk turning the pages for fear of breaking them these days)

and

> quote all the shlokas. Even the " Bhavarthabodhini " commentary on

> " Phaldeepika " , by Gopeshkumar Ojha, talks about Dreshkana kundali

and

> navamsha Kundali, though you hold that such charts can not be and

should

> not be drawn.

>

> Chandrashekhar.

>

> vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> >

> > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> >

> > Thanks a lot for the reply.I will explain as you are not sure on

> > what i am trying to prove.

> >

> > Your translation is perfect.But that is not the point of debate.

> > Will such an aspect confirm to rules set by sage.As per BPHS No.As

> > per Late Santhanam No. This has been the debate for all these

> > years ,not about the translation.

> > Then where are these aspects?We will come to this later.But we

have

> > a very very important point to address before that.

> >

> > All these years until yesterday,you were of the opinion,that you

do

> > not accept aspects in divisonal charts as a rule.You have added

> > that,you will use aspects when sage mentions so, in a few cases.

> >

> > Now today,if you understand,the shloka as mentioning to aspects in

> > varga chakras - you are accepting grahadrishti as a RULE

in ''varga

> > chakras''.This is so because,any planet can be placed anywhere in

6

> > varga-chakras and aspect Lagna.So you are accepting graha drishtis

> > in Varga chakra as a rule.It is fine with me.It is your personal

> > view.

> >

> > Now could you please tell me the reason for this change in

> > opinion.Also could you tell me why all these years,you were of the

> > opinion that Graha drishti as a rule is not possible in Varga

> > chakras.Myself and the astrological community would really be

> > interested in knowing the reason.

> >

> > After that ,i will say why graha drishtis are not possible w.r to

> > BPHS with pramanas.

> >

> > Respect

> > Pradeep

> >

> > <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > >

> > > Dear Pradeep,

> > >

> > > I do not know what you are trying to prove here. However, the

> > > translation is pretty straight forward and is:

> > >

> > > " O, Learned brahmin, if the six divisions of the ascendant are

> > occupied

> > > or aspected by the same graha, a raj yoga is formed, without

> > doubt. If

> > > the aspect is full the results are full, if half, so are the

> > results

> > > half and if 1/4th the yoga fructifies at 1/4th strength. "

> > >

> > > This indicates that Parashara is talking about graha drishti

here.

> > No

> > > doubt about that. rasi drishti are full drishtis. This is

> > apparently so

> > > as one of the 6 Vargas is navamsha where graha drishti can be

> > seen. This

> > > also means that Parashara is not himself accepting the 2 rasi

hora

> > > (Chandra and Surya) system that is proposed by Varaha Mihira. So

> > if you

> > > accept the shloka as it is then you have to forget the Hora

> > > interpretation of Brihat jataka and Dashaadhyaayi. Is that

> > acceptable to

> > > you?

> > >

> > > If you read Santanam's comment on it the fact that aspects in

> > divisional

> > > charts are given in that shloka, is accepted by him, though he

> > expresses

> > > that he is unable to fully conceive the logic of these aspects.

> > >

> > > So do I, now, presume that you are accepting aspects in D-

Charts,

> > now

> > > that you have quoted the shloka and the supremacy of BPHS over

> > > Dashaadhyaayi?

> > >

> > > Let me make it clear that I personally do not treat one classic

> > superior

> > > or inferior to other, but this is what appears to be Pradeep's

> > view as

> > > he is quoting the shloka in support of his argument.

> > >

> > > Chandrashekhar.

> > >

> > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > >

> > > > The shloka numbers as requested are -

> > > >

> > > > Chapter - 39,Adha Rajayogadhyaya,shloka 13 & 14.I am also

> > providing

> > > > the sanskrit link(pdf) so that you can read them without any

> > fonts.

> > > >

> > > > http://sanskritdocuments.org/all_pdf/par3140.pdf

> > <http://sanskritdocuments.org/all_pdf/par3140.pdf>

> > > > <http://sanskritdocuments.org/all_pdf/par3140.pdf

> > <http://sanskritdocuments.org/all_pdf/par3140.pdf>>

> > > >

> > > > Respect

> > > > Pradeep

> > > >

> > <%40>

> > > > <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > >

> > > > > If the entire comment on a shloka is not given then it is

> > obvious

> > > > that

> > > > > only selective position is given.

> > > > >

> > > > > I am, perhaps, perceived to be drifting away from the point

as

> > you

> > > > are

> > > > > bringing in too many points in the thread, and leaving them

off

> > > > when

> > > > > evidence to the contrary is given by any of the members to

the

> > > > list. You

> > > > > began by stating the Jaimini sutra as coming from BPHS and

then

> > > > went on

> > > > > to say that BPHS says that aspects are not possible in D-

> > Charts.

> > > > Then

> > > > > you said that KNR does not consider aspects in D-Charts.

Then

> > > > followed

> > > > > the argument that Santanam does not consider aspects in D-

> > Charts.

> > > > > Whenever anybody produced evidence to the contrary you

changed

> > the

> > > > > subject to quote someone else. Same happens with your

> > translation

> > > > of

> > > > > shlokas and also trying to project that some sage has

> > prohibited

> > > > use of

> > > > > any chart other than rasi chart. I had quoted on the

authority

> > of

> > > > > Parashara that he specifically tells to draw charts for

Bhava,

> > > > Ghatika,

> > > > > Hora lagnas and then you suddenly changed the direction of

the

> > > > > discussion instead of accepting or rejecting the quotes.

Even

> > the

> > > > Amsha

> > > > > and Amshaka differentiation that is brought in is more for

> > > > confusion

> > > > > than clarity. Amshaka is a degree of longitude and so is

Amsha

> > > > though

> > > > > Amsha also refers to a part of a whole. The difference

between

> > > > their

> > > > > meaning is negligible with reference to the discussion on

> > Vargas.

> > > > >

> > > > > This is why I had said that I would not like to take pains

to

> > > > write down

> > > > > the whole commentary of a shloka by Bhattotpala when you

said

> > that

> > > > > dashaadhyaayi also has longish comments. If this is so why

give

> > > > one

> > > > > liners as the comment? If this is not selective, pray what

is?

> > > > >

> > > > > Similar is your insistence to change the grammar of

Sanskrit to

> > > > suit

> > > > > what you think a sage means. Merely insisting that aspects

are

> > not

> > > > > possible without giving quotes from authorities and saying

> > that no

> > > > other

> > > > > charts can be drawn when it is shown that sages did talk of

> > other

> > > > charts

> > > > > is not the way to arrive at any concrete conclusion in

matters

> > > > astrological.

> > > > >

> > > > > If you think that Drik does not mean drishti, you are free

to

> > > > think

> > > > > that. There is no reference to navamsha devoid of chakra and

> > rashi

> > > > > chakra in the shloka. So we have not seen anything like

that as

> > > > you

> > > > > claim. The shloka about trimshamsha is different from what

is

> > now

> > > > being

> > > > > discussed and you will find it if you sift through the

> > voluminous

> > > > > exchange of mail on this subject.

> > > > >

> > > > > I have not seen a single quotation showing that a chart

with a

> > > > point

> > > > > other than Lagna rasi can not be drawn. For want of that,

it is

> > > > not

> > > > > possible to accept that no other chart other than rasi chart

> > can

> > > > be

> > > > > drawn as is being advanced by you. I could give you

references

> > > > from

> > > > > Kerala astrology showing how many different charts can be

drawn

> > > > that

> > > > > have nothing to do with Janma lagna as the first bhava, but

am

> > > > sure you

> > > > > will then jump t o some other subject.

> > > > >

> > > > > If you could explain how shadvarga of Venus or Mars can be

> > found

> > > > in Hora

> > > > > chart (or mere hora if you prefer that word), Hora being

one of

> > > > the

> > > > > shadvargas, as proposed by Varaha Mihira, I would explain

how

> > > > Lagna

> > > > > Shadvargake shloka can be explained ( provided you give the

> > entire

> > > > > shloka with adhyaaya and shloka number).

> > > > >

> > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > >

> > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Difficulty to type in long interpretations is not to be

> > > > explained.I

> > > > > > do not know how it will become selective.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > I am bit concerned to see yourself drifting away from the

> > main

> > > > > > point,in your recent posts.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > For eg - I am still awaiting your view on how to interpret

> > Lagna

> > > > > > shadvargake,when aspects in vargas are not possible as per

> > rules

> > > > set

> > > > > > by sages.BPHS and Late Santhanam.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Inspite of this impossibility ,i don't know how we can

think

> > of

> > > > > > aspects in the first place.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > 1)Driksamstha was mentioned by you as example

> > for ''Trimshamsha

> > > > > > chakra''.We have seen that it is not Trimshamsha chakra

but

> > rashi

> > > > > > chakra and navamsha combination.In Saravali too this is

> > > > > > mentioned.Dashadhayayi kara too has given the same meaning

> > plus

> > > > > > Saravali as supportive.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > You were not agreeing.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Now today i have seen from internet

> > (www.brihaspati.net),English

> > > > > > translation of Saravali,where the shloka is interpreted

> > exactly

> > > > the

> > > > > > same way as Dashadhyayi kara has done 800 years back.I

> > request

> > > > > > members to go and read that.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > 2)Chapter 21 ,shloka 8 was mentioned by you as example for

> > > > amshas in

> > > > > > isolation.We have seen that it contains both rashi and

amsha

> > for

> > > > > > shoshee and together in karka or simha for another

disease.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > 3)Today you are mentioning shloka 9.Which again is a

> > combination

> > > > of

> > > > > > amshas and rashi combined with drishti in rashi.We have

> > umpteen

> > > > > > shlokas in Saravali pointing to such drishtis.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Thus i request you to kindly explain how Lagna shadvargake

> > > > shloka can

> > > > > > be explained.Thanks for clarifying that,Trimshamsha chakra

> > was

> > > > your

> > > > > > personal view.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > As i have said nobody is opposing the drawing of amshas

> > within

> > > > rashi

> > > > > > skeleton.Thus as you say drawing chart is pratyaksha.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > But Paramana was only seeked for shlokas talking about

> > bhavas and

> > > > > > aspects.Riksha/Bhava/Rashi as synonyms makes the defintion

> > > > clear.Shri

> > > > > > PVR who himself is a Sanskrit scholar could only give one

> > > > shloka -

> > > > > > Lagnashadvargake.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Respect

> > > > > > Pradeep

> > > > > >

> > <%40>

> > > > <%40>

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

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

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Had I had access to Dashaadhyaayi, I would not have

> > troubled

> > > > you

> > > > > > with

> > > > > > > all these queries. If you say that you did not reproduce

> > the

> > > > > > comments

> > > > > > > given by Dashaadhyaayikar and only the gist of what he

> > says,

> > > > does

> > > > > > it

> > > > > > > mean you have given the comments selectively?

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Did I say in any of my mails that Bhattotpala said

anything

> > > > about

> > > > > > > Trimshamsha Chakra? And does Dashaadhyaayikar,

> > specifically,

> > > > says

> > > > > > that

> > > > > > > no other chart than rasi chart exists in astrology as

you

> > are

> > > > > > implying?

> > > > > > > I would doubt he could say so. If you read 9th shloka of

> > 21st

> > > > > > adhyaaya

> > > > > > > of Brihat jataka your doubt about navamsha drishti would

> > > > perhaps be

> > > > > > > clarified, should you accept it to mean what it does.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > As I said that you having made up your mind as to

drawing

> > any

> > > > other

> > > > > > > chart other than a rasi chart as wrong, nothing will

come

> > out

> > > > of

> > > > > > this

> > > > > > > discussion. I really find it strange that even when

almost

> > all

> > > > > > > astrologers in India draw Navamasha chart as a matter of

> > > > course,

> > > > > > you

> > > > > > > deny that such a chart can exist. This is the first time

> > that

> > > > I am

> > > > > > > seeing that Pramana is demanded for what is Pratyaksha.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > You may check with some of your friends on the

detailed

> > > > level of

> > > > > > > > explanation in Dashadhyayi.As you might have noted

with

> > > > > > bHATTOTPALA,

> > > > > > > > it will be difficult for me to quote explantions

spanning

> > > > pages.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Now i would love to know if Bhattotpala has mentioned

any

> > > > > > Trimshamsha

> > > > > > > > chakra.Or was that your view.Bhattotpala can never say

> > so.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Respect

> > > > > > > > Pradeep

> > > > > > > >

> > <%40>

> > > > <%40>

> > > > > > <%40>

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

Chandrashekhar

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

> > > > > > > > >

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

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > When you do not accept the Sanskrit shlokas from

Brihat

> > > > jataka,

> > > > > > > > which

> > > > > > > > > Dashaadhyaayikar comments upon, let apart BPHS, what

> > > > purpose

> > > > > > can be

> > > > > > > > > served by giving the voluminous comments of

> > Bhattotpala in

> > > > > > > > Sanskrit?

> > > > > > > > > Unlike Dashaadhyaayi (if you really gave the entire

> > > > shlokas)

> > > > > > > > Bhattotpala

> > > > > > > > > goes into explanation of each word in the shloka and

> > then

> > > > gives

> > > > > > his

> > > > > > > > > opinion of what he understands Varaha Mihira to have

> > meant

> > > > by

> > > > > > that

> > > > > > > > > shloka. I had already given the English translation

of

> > > > what both

> > > > > > > > > Bhattotpala and Sitaram Jha said in earlier mails.

If

> > you

> > > > go

> > > > > > > > through our

> > > > > > > > > voluminous correspondence, you will certainly get

the

> > same.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > For the same reason i had provided the very

Sanskrit

> > > > shloka

> > > > > > from

> > > > > > > > > > Dashadhyayikara regarding kemadruma etc.Similarly

if

> > you

> > > > can

> > > > > > give

> > > > > > > > > > sanskrit verses from Bhatotpala and hindi from

> > Sitaram

> > > > > > jha ,issue

> > > > > > > > is

> > > > > > > > > > closed.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Respect

> > > > > > > > > > Pradeep

> > > > > > > > > >

> > <%40>

> > > > <%40>

> > > > > > <%40>

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

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

> > Chandrashekhar

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

> > > > > > > > > > >

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

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Okay, let me put it in your words. As you

> > > > said " Bhattotpala

> > > > > > might

> > > > > > > > > > have

> > > > > > > > > > > been misunderstood (inadvertently) by some or it

> > can

> > > > be your

> > > > > > > > view

> > > > > > > > > > about

> > > > > > > > > > > those translations. " Why should not

> > Dashaadhyaayikar

> > > > not

> > > > > > have

> > > > > > > > been

> > > > > > > > > > > misunderstood (inadvertently) by some or it can

be

> > your

> > > > > > views

> > > > > > > > about

> > > > > > > > > > > those translations? Any reason for the

immunity? We

> > > > have

> > > > > > already

> > > > > > > > > > sen

> > > > > > > > > > > misinterpretation of KaTaPaYaaDi rules by one

> > scholar

> > > > on

> > > > > > this

> > > > > > > > very

> > > > > > > > > > list,

> > > > > > > > > > > not so long ago.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

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

> > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

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

> > > > > > > > > > > > Pls read again.I have said Bhatotpala Cannot

be

> > > > wrong is

> > > > > > my

> > > > > > > > strong

> > > > > > > > > > > > conviction.You might have misread it in haste.

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

> > > > > > > > > > > > Respect

> > > > > > > > > > > > Pradeep

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

> > > > > > > > > > > > -- In

> > <%40>

> > > > <%40>

> > > > > > <%40>

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

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

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

> > > > Chandrashekhar

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

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

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

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

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Think about it, if Bhattotpala can be wrong

> > then

> > > > so can

> > > > > > be

> > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Dashaadhyaayikar. Is there is any reason

that

> > he

> > > > can

> > > > > > not be

> > > > > > > > if

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Bhattotpala can be wrong?

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

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

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

> > > > > > > > > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

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

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

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

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dashadhayayi is not a classic and my view

> > was it

> > > > is

> > > > > > more

> > > > > > > > than

> > > > > > > > > > a

> > > > > > > > > > > > mere

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > commentary as it has clear

explanations,while

> > > > thinking

> > > > > > > > from a

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > students perspective.

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

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > As you know,inspite of having all those

> > > > > > commentaries,you

> > > > > > > > were

> > > > > > > > > > > > having

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > a view of trimshamsha chakra,which is a

> > concern

> > > > for

> > > > > > > > > > me.Similarly

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > there were couple of other shlokas that

you

> > have

> > > > > > quoted as

> > > > > > > > > > > > examples.

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

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thus i feel Bhatotpala might have been

> > > > misunderstood

> > > > > > > > > > > > (inadvertently)

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > by some or it can be your view about those

> > > > > > > > > > translations.Bhatotpala

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > cannot be wrong is my stron conviction.

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

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > The sanskrit shlokas from dashadhyayi were

> > > > quoted by

> > > > > > > > me,for

> > > > > > > > > > > > example

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > cases of kemadruma,which clearly explains

> > > > leaving no

> > > > > > > > > > ambiguity.I

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > cannot think

jeevasharma,Gargi,Sruthakeerthi

> > etc

> > > > will

> > > > > > > > make the

> > > > > > > > > > > > same

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > mistake.

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

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thus i was talking about Sanskrit

> > explanations

> > > > and not

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > malayalam.Sanskrit to Malayalam

translation

> > is

> > > > pretty

> > > > > > > > straight

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > forward due to many similarities.

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

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > I will give all my views with more

clarity.

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

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Respect

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pradeep

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

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

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

> > > > removed]

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

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

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

---

> > ----

> > > > -----

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

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

> > > > > > > > > > > > Version: 7.5.476 / Virus Database:

269.10.4/898 -

> > > > Release

> > > > > > > > Date:

> > > > > > > > > > 7/12/2007 4:08 PM

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

> > > > > > > > > > >

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

> > removed]

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

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

---

> > ----

> > > > -

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

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Version: 7.5.476 / Virus Database: 269.10.4/898 -

> > Release

> > > > > > Date:

> > > > > > > > 7/12/2007 4:08 PM

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

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

removed]

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

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

---

> > -

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

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Version: 7.5.476 / Virus Database: 269.10.9/907 -

Release

> > > > Date:

> > > > > > 7/18/2007 3:30 PM

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

July 27, 2007

Dear Pradeep,

Are you sure when you say

<< One of the byproducts of internet technology was institutionalisation of

Varga Chakras>>

Has NO ONE used varga chakras, or aspects in Vargas, BEFORE THE ADVENT OF

INTERNET??

Please listen to the voice of the silent majority. you are needlessly

insisting on being convinced when you have yourself closed your mind to all

arguments and proofs to the contrary.

Any post that supports your view is termed OBJECTIVE, else - as per you - it

is mis-interpretation.

Trust you will take this mail in right spirit and spare the list from the

replays and re-mixes of your views.

Regards,

Shailesh

_____

On

Behalf Of vijayadas_pradeep

Thursday, July 26, 2007 9:01 PM

Re: Varge as Plural - Shloka number and Link-Lagna

Shadvargake

Dear Satya ji

I apologize if i was not clear about Internet.One of the byproducts

of internet technology was institutionalisation of Varga Chakras.

On the other hand,i would like to say that Internet has helped a lot

in gainiing knowledge as well to interact with many great souls.

I have no disrespect and if it was felt,pls accept my apologies.

Regds

Pradeep

@ <%40>

, " Satya Sai Kolachina "

<skolachi wrote:

>

> Dear Sri Pradeep,

>

> No one feels here insecure nor shaky. In am only objecting your

> estimating others of their basics. Please do not introduce new

words

> and try to divert the attention of the public here. Rather I get a

> feeling that you feel insecure and are losing patience since even

> after repeated telling people are not buying your views. We don't

> have to buy your views; more so, when you take such an approach as

I

> objected.

>

> You have over-used this word 'basics' which undermines the

> capabilities and knowledge of several astrologers worldwide. So

long

> as you limit your words to your way of explaining your opinions,

> neither I nor anyone will have objection with you. If we wish we

> will debate, otherwise we don't. But do not say that 'go back to

> basics' or 'learn basics', as these words explicitly undermine

> others. In the past even Sri Satish also used the words 'those who

> are under the muddy waters'. Even Jagadguru Adi Sankaracharya

never

> used such words. He is one of the greatest mahatmas India every

> produced. Such words will only esclate the level of ego of the

> person expressing such words, but achieve nothing. After I raised

> the objection, he also stopped using such words. You may be

> aggressive putting your views. But in that process, you should not

> put down others' views or others' knowledge level.

>

> In any debate, there usually two sides of the camp and there are

> people on both sides. Even other pepole who supproted your views

> earlier in this thread, have not used such words as you, or Satish

> or even Sri Srinadh used. I never wanted to even participate when

Mr

> Srinadh was in this debate, after I observed the way he interacted

> with Sri Chandrasekhar. It was much low-level attitude and mean

> behavior about others. That is not accepted in public forums and

> discussions. You have to give the same level of honor and respect

to

> the others' knowledge level as you expect from others.

>

> You may consider your views as supported by Sage Parasara. But, so

> long as the controversy exists and people are there in both the

> camps, to the public it is still your opinion. Such controversies

do

> exist in astrology. Why only this topic? There are several topics

> that have controversial views; that is because most astrologers

are

> dependent on results-oriented approach. Hence you cannot still

claim

> what you are trying to claim today. Why do you have difficulty to

> use the words " IN MY OPINION, " or " AS MY KNOWLEDGE SUGGEST, " ? No

> one will object you when you give respect to others' knowledge.

> Rather your knowledge enhances or brightens, and you will win more

> listeners to your opinion.

>

> I will give an example. The other controversy is the ayanamsa.

Those

> who use Chitrapaksha ayanamsa, use it since they get results from

> using the same. Those who use other ayanamsas like Raman's and

KP's

> can use them if it works for them. You can not dictate what people

> should use it.

>

> As Sri Bharat suggested, nowhere in BPHS or any other classic we

are

> told to use computers and Internet media to propagate. Show me a

> single shloka that supports use of computers and Internet for

> Jyothish. In fact, in his articles Sri KN Rao says, if we do

manual

> computations on astrological charts, we actually know how the

> planets are interacting with each other even at D-charts level

also.

>

> Since you are a true believer of classical approach using Shlokas,

I

> DO NOT EXPECT YOU TO USE INTERNET AND COMPUTERS FOR THE CAUSE OF

> ASTROLOGY. Of course, I have no right to tell you to use or not

use

> something. Using your own approach this is what I have to say,

since

> there is no classical text that supports (unless you or your

> supporters invent one).

>

> The gist of my message is, say whatever you want to say, but as

your

> opinion only. Do not undermine the knowledge of others.

>

> Best regards,

> Satya S Kolachina

>

> @ <%40>

, " vijayadas_pradeep "

> <vijayadas_pradeep@> wrote:

> >

> > Dear Satya ji

> >

> > I have also mentioned numerous times that,if Raoji feels it is

> > giving him results ,i cannot object.Even if Raoji does not use

> these

> > extra info he would get the results is my PERSONAL opinion.

> >

> > Now the question is about fundamentals.Whether Raoji has

> understood

> > or not is beyond my abilities.

> >

> > I go by Tarka and Pramana.If anybody wants to clarify they can

> take

> > the relevant shloka.If any body can translate the shloka for

> aspects

> > in a different way let them do it.Pls do not say the shloka

that

> > defines aspect is not clear.

> >

> > If you have different translation pls provide.I am not prepared

to

> > debate on your personal views or ''it works for

> me /him ''etc.Tarka

> > and Pramana like the way -Chandrashekar ji does -i am there.Else

> why

> > do we debate?

> >

> > Let us be cool.The debate is only for those want to take a

relook

> at

> > basics.I cannot understand the insecure feeling.Why are we shaky

> > here.

> >

> > Regds

> > Pradeep

> >

> > @ <%40>

, " Satya Sai Kolachina "

> > <skolachi@> wrote:

> > >

> > > Dear Sri Pradeep,

> > >

> > > I raise a strong objection here: You twisted the statement

> avoided

> > > every other point I discussed here. This is not appropriate.

> > >

> > > Those astrologers of prior geneations, who used bhavas,

drishtis

> > and

> > > amshas are not Internet astrolgoers. They never used

computers.

> In

> > > fact, Sri K N Rao terms those astrologers who depend 100% on

> > > computers as compudiots, in one of his articles. Internet did

> not

> > > even exist in those days.

> > >

> > > PLEASE DO NOT TALK ABOUT BASICS ON INTERNET. THIS IS MY

EARNEST

> > AND

> > > HUMBLE WAY OF REQUESTING YOU TO HONOR OTHER ASTROLOGERS AND

> THEIR

> > > APPROACH TO ASTROLOGY.

> > >

> > > TIME AN AGAIN YOU ARE DOING THIS. EVERY ASTROLOGER HAS BASIC

> > > KNOWLEDGE HERE. IT IS THE WAY THE BASICS ARE INTEREPRETED TO

THE

> > > SITUATION AND MAKING BRILLIANT PREDICTIONS.

> > > TO PROPAGATE YOUR THEORY, PUBLISH BOOKS AND SEE HOW IT GETS TO

> THE

> > > PUBLIC.

> > >

> > > WHEN YOU HAVE OPEN SAID TO SRI TARUN THAT YOU ARE NOT

COMPETENT

> > > ENOUGH IN SANSKRIT, YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO CLAIM THAT YOUR

> > > INTERPRETATION IS THE CORRECT INTERPRETATION.

> > >

> > > First read all the artiles that Sri KN Rao published and come

> back

> > to

> > > me whether he used aspects in D charts or not. He is not a

> person

> > to

> > > say something to the public and do something else in his real

> > > practice. His artilces speak for him.

> > >

> > > He used mixed concetps to arrive at conclusions. Whatever

> concept

> > > works in reality that is what he picked.

> > >

> > > Regards,

> > > Satya S Kolachina

> > >

> > > @ <%40>

, " vijayadas_pradeep "

> > > <vijayadas_pradeep@> wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Dear Satya ji

> > > >

> > > > I totally agree with your view.Information technology and

> > internet

> > > > Jyotishis have made new rules and laws.For the same reason i

> > went

> > > > back ,800 years to quote Dashadhyayi etc.

> > > >

> > > > Hope all members would go back to classics as you have

rightly

> > > > mentioned.

> > > >

> > > > Regds

> > > > Pradeep

> > > >

> > > > @ <%40>

, " Satya Sai Kolachina "

> > > > <skolachi@> wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > > Dear Sri Bharat,

> > > > >

> > > > > I appreciate your asking openly about the level of

Sanskrit

> > > > knowledge

> > > > > of these Internet astrologers. THis question prompted me

> many

> > > > times

> > > > > and just to play low, I did not bring this point.

> > > > >

> > > > > In one of his messages to Sri Tarun, Sri Pradeep says that

> he

> > is

> > > > not

> > > > > enough knowledged in Sanskrit, and on the other hand he is

> > 100%

> > > > sure

> > > > > of his translation of Sanskrit language. Sanskrit is a

> cryptic

> > > > > language where a suthra can reveal secrets the more and

more

> > you

> > > > try

> > > > > to understand.

> > > > >

> > > > > In several occassions sri KN Rao mentioned the same thing

in

> > his

> > > > > articles; A sutra is something like the more and more you

> > unwind

> > > > it,

> > > > > the more and more it reveals about its inner meanings. One

> has

> > to

> > > > > have real OPEN mind to do that unwinding, and of course a

> very

> > > > good

> > > > > level of sanskrit knowledge one needs.

> > > > >

> > > > > It is highly inappropriate on the part of these Internet

> > > > astrologers

> > > > > to blame those other astrologers not discussing in favor

of

> > their

> > > > > theory, as not following basics in astrology. First of all

> > they

> > > > > should have strong (not basic) knowledge of Sanskrit.

> > > > >

> > > > > What authority they have in their name to talk about

> > astrologers

> > > > of

> > > > > the prior generations, who have completely sacrificed

their

> > lives

> > > > to

> > > > > the cause of astrology? Almost every astrologer in the

prior

> > > > > generations used aspects and bhavas in Varga charts.

> > > > >

> > > > > I do not question this way if these Internet astrologers

say

> > > > that " IT

> > > > > is their interpretation of the shlokas " . No. They are not

> > saying

> > > > > that. They are talking authoritatively that it is the

right

> > way

> > > of

> > > > > interpretation. The clear contradiction is seen here. Once

> > they

> > > > say

> > > > > they are not competent enough in Sanskrit (when questioned

> by

> > Sri

> > > > > Tarun) and on the other side, they say that their

> > interpretatino

> > > > is

> > > > > final and authoritative.

> > > > >

> > > > > When we question like this, they selectively answer our

> > > questions,

> > > > > and where they have no answers they skip and change the

> topic.

> > > > >

> > > > > It is highly inappropriate on the part of these Internet

> > > > astrologers

> > > > > to enforce their opinions on the astrologer community, and

> > those

> > > > who

> > > > > do not accept their theory - telling them to go back to

> basics.

> > > > >

> > > > > As you rightly said, instead of typing nearly 200 emails

to

> > say

> > > > the

> > > > > same thing (which is nothing but enforcing their opinion

on

> > the

> > > > > public forums) again and again, they can very well assist

> the

> > > > people

> > > > > with their own theory and if there is value in the theory,

> it

> > > > > automatically comes and gets accepted. No need of so much

> > > > repetition.

> > > > >

> > > > > Best regards,

> > > > > Satya Sai Kolachina

> > > > >

> > > > > @ <%40>

, " Bharat - Hindu

> > Astrology "

> > > > > <astrologyhindu@> wrote:

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Namaskaar Sri Satish

> > > > > >

> > > > > > If something is your question, you should ask the

> concerned

> > > > > astrologer. If

> > > > > > Sri K N Rao takes Karakamsha too the Rashi and if you do

> not

> > > > accept

> > > > > it, it

> > > > > > is for you to ask. You cannot ask members here to become

> > your

> > > > > personal

> > > > > > " messengers " .

> > > > > >

> > > > > > When Karakamsha is taken in Navamsha, is it not taken as

a

> > > > separate

> > > > > chart?

> > > > > > If it is, then, the argument that no other chart other

> than

> > > > Rashi

> > > > > exists, is

> > > > > > totally false. If not, then Sri K N Rao is right in

taking

> > > > > Karakamsha in

> > > > > > Rashi.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > However, are you sure of all books that there are in

> Jyotish

> > > are

> > > > > available

> > > > > > with you? Are you sure they are undiluted texts from

when

> > they

> > > > were

> > > > > written?

> > > > > > Are you sure that you know Sanskrit to the level of Sri

> Adi

> > > > Sankara

> > > > > to be

> > > > > > able to confirm that one translation is right and not

the

> > > other.

> > > > > Coupled

> > > > > > with misrepresentation of facts and misquotes galore by

a

> > > member

> > > > > just amazes

> > > > > > me.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Almost 20 days back, a member was asked to discuss

charts.

> > He

> > > > has

> > > > > the time

> > > > > > to write close to 200 emails, but not the time to read

ONE

> > > > single

> > > > > chart. Yes

> > > > > > it amazes me how with 99% of ignorance one can pretend

to

> be

> > > 100%

> > > > > > knowledgeable.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > And who gives the right to one person to decide that Sri

> > Iyer's

> > > > > method were

> > > > > > non-vedic?

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Thanks and Regards

> > > > > > Bharat

> > > > > >

> > > > > > On 7/25/07, SPK <aquaris_rising@> wrote:

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Hi,

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > The debate may be endless but certainly not pointless.

> > > > > > > Atleast not for me. Please read how the same shloka

> > > > > > > can be interpreted with taking aspects in rashi chart.

> > > > > > > People have interpreted it to suit their own already

> > > > > > > formed ideas. I had raisded questions about why KNRao

> > > > > > > transfers karakamsha to rashi chart ? Has anyone asked

> > > > > > > him why ? The answer could be he has researched 1000

> > > > > > > horoscopes. But has anyone asked if there is any

> > > > > > > classical reference to why karakamsha has to be taken

> > > > > > > to rashi ? Has anyone asked him that question ? I ask

> > > > > > > the guys who have contact with him to ask this

> > > > > > > question.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Satish

> > > > > > > --- Satya Sai Kolachina <skolachi@ <skolachi%

> > 40hotmail.com>>

> > > > > > > wrote:

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Dear Sri Chandrasekhar ji,

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > I am trying to keep myself from this endless and

> > > > > > > > pointless debate

> > > > > > > > for a long time; but I could not resist myself from

> > > > > > > > appreciating you

> > > > > > > > bringing out this most valuable shloka and

> > > > > > > > interpretation on this

> > > > > > > > subject.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > This is the ultimate answer to those who do not

> > > > > > > > consider aspects in

> > > > > > > > Varga charts or D-Charts. Clearly Sage Parasara

> > > > > > > > indicates here, his

> > > > > > > > support on aspects in varga charts and in fact, all

> > > > > > > > your & our

> > > > > > > > earlier arguments in this debate get strengthened by

> > > > > > > > this single

> > > > > > > > shloka you provided.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Of course; those who have a fixed mindset (even

> > > > > > > > though they keep

> > > > > > > > saying open mind, in fact, they have fixed mindset)

> > > > > > > > can always twist

> > > > > > > > the interpretation to their convenience and try to

> > > > > > > > MAKE a FIT of the

> > > > > > > > shloka for their views. Such interpretation, however

> > > > > > > > will not stand

> > > > > > > > your opinion posted in this mail.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > This in fact brings out your experience and

> > > > > > > > understanding level of

> > > > > > > > the subject.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Best regards,

> > > > > > > > Satya S Kolachina

> > > > > > > >

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

<%

> > > > > 40>,

> > > > > > > Chandrashekhar

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

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Dear Krishna,

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > The reason for aspects being allowed within

> > > > > > > > D-charts may have to

> > > > > > > > do with

> > > > > > > > > the " Grahasphutadrishtikathanaadhyaaya " where

> > > > > > > > evaluation of

> > > > > > > > different

> > > > > > > > > aspects of grahas are given and they range from 30

> > > > > > > > degrees onwards

> > > > > > > > in

> > > > > > > > > increments of 0.30 degrees each till 299.30 as per

> > > > > > > > table given by

> > > > > > > > Late

> > > > > > > > > R. Santanam. There is no repetition of amshas

> > > > > > > > attributed to one

> > > > > > > > rasi

> > > > > > > > > within a rasi in the first harmonic chart class

> > > > > > > > and therefore

> > > > > > > > these

> > > > > > > > > drishtis become applicable. In higher harmonics

> > > > > > > > these may not be

> > > > > > > > > applicable as rasi equivalent Varga will repeat,

> > > > > > > > within 30 degrees

> > > > > > > > and

> > > > > > > > > that is why I personally would look at rasi

> > > > > > > > drishti there.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Of course the above is my personal opinion on the

> > > > > > > > logic behind the

> > > > > > > > > aspects, within D-Charts, and the way they may be

> > > > > > > > considered and

> > > > > > > > it is

> > > > > > > > > up to the learned to decide whether this view is

> > > > > > > > right or not.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Krishnamurthy Seetharama wrote:

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji,

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Thanks for this mail and the translation of the

> > > > > > > > Shloka in BPHS.

> > > > > > > > > > I guess it has been conclusively proven that the

> > > > > > > > aspects are

> > > > > > > > > > allowed in the six divisional charts. I am not

> > > > > > > > sure if everyone

> > > > > > > > > > gets convinced or not, I am relieved for sure.

> > > > > > > > And, I am happy

> > > > > > > > > > that I am in the right path.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > However, the question remains that what is the

> > > > > > > > principle behind

> > > > > > > > > > allowing aspects in the divisional charts, even

> > > > > > > > if they are a

> > > > > > > > > > restricted set.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > I guess the ancient authors have not explained

> > > > > > > > the principle

> > > > > > > > > > behind the same. However, I would be very glad

> > > > > > > > if you could

> > > > > > > > > > share your thoughts on this.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Regards,

> > > > > > > > > > Krishna

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > --- Chandrashekhar <chandrashekhar46@

> > > > > > > > > > <chandrashekhar46%40.co.uk>> wrote:

> > > > > > > > > >

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

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > I do not know what you are trying to prove

> > > > > > > > here. However, the

> > > > > > > > > > > translation is pretty straight forward and is:

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > " O, Learned brahmin, if the six divisions of

> > > > > > > > the ascendant are

> > > > > > > > > > > occupied

> > > > > > > > > > > or aspected by the same graha, a raj yoga is

> > > > > > > > formed, without

> > > > > > > > > > > doubt. If

> > > > > > > > > > > the aspect is full the results are full, if

> > > > > > > > half, so are the

> > > > > > > > > > > results

> > > > > > > > > > > half and if 1/4th the yoga fructifies at 1/4th

> > > > > > > > strength. "

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > This indicates that Parashara is talking about

> > > > > > > > graha drishti

> > > > > > > > > > > here. No

> > > > > > > > > > > doubt about that. rasi drishti are full

> > > > > > > > drishtis. This is

> > > > > > > > > > > apparently so

> > > > > > > > > > > as one of the 6 Vargas is navamsha where graha

> > > > > > > > drishti can be

> > > > > > > > > > > seen. This

> > > > > > > > > > > also means that Parashara is not himself

> > > > > > > > accepting the 2 rasi

> > > > > > > > > > > hora

> > > > > > > > > > > (Chandra and Surya) system that is proposed by

> > > > > > > > Varaha Mihira.

> > > > > > > > > > > So if you

> > > > > > > > > > > accept the shloka as it is then you have to

> > > > > > > > forget the Hora

> > > > > > > > > > > interpretation of Brihat jataka and

> > > > > > > > Dashaadhyaayi. Is that

> > > > > > > > > > > acceptable to

> > > > > > > > > > > you?

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > If you read Santanam's comment on it the fact

> > > > > > > > that aspects in

> > > > > > > > > > > divisional

> > > > > > > > > > > charts are given in that shloka, is accepted

> > > > > > > > by him, though he

> > > > > > > > > > > expresses

> > > > > > > > > > > that he is unable to fully conceive the logic

> > > > > > > > of these

> > > > > > > > > > > aspects.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > So do I, now, presume that you are accepting

> > > > > > > > aspects in

> > > > > > > > > > > D-Charts, now

> > > > > > > > > > > that you have quoted the shloka and the

> > > > > > > > supremacy of BPHS over

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Dashaadhyaayi?

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Let me make it clear that I personally do not

> > > > > > > > treat one

> > > > > > > > > > > classic superior

> > > > > > > > > > > or inferior to other, but this is what appears

> > > > > > > > to be Pradeep's

> > > > > > > > > > > view as

> > > > > > > > > > > he is quoting the shloka in support of his

> > > > > > > > argument.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

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

> > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

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

> > > > > > > > > > > > The shloka numbers as requested are -

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

> > > > > > > > > > > > Chapter - 39,Adha Rajayogadhyaya,shloka 13 &

> > > > > > > > 14.I am also

> > > > > > > > > > > providing

> > > > > > > > > > > > the sanskrit link(pdf) so that you can read

> > > > > > > > them without any

> > > > > > > > > > > fonts.

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

> > > > > > > > http://sanskritdocu

<http://sanskritdocuments.org/all_pdf/par3140.pdf>

ments.org/all_pdf/par3140.pdf

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > <http://sanskritdocu

<http://sanskritdocuments.org/all_pdf/par3140.pdf>

ments.org/all_pdf/par3140.pdf>

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > === message truncated ===

> > > > > > >

> ________

> > > > > > > Fussy? Opinionated? Impossible to please? Perfect.

Join

> > > > 's

> > > > > user

> > > > > > > panel and lay it on us.

> > > > > > >

http://surveylink.

<http://surveylink./gmrs/_panel_invite.asp?>

/gmrs/_panel_invite.asp?

> a=7

> > > > > > >

> > > > > >

July 27, 2007

Dear Krishna,

I would think so. Actually, I think that the graha drishtis in first

harmonic charts arise out of treating multiples of the arc of the

particular division as drishtis and yutis. Let me however make it clear

that I have not looked at individual drishti in that manner as I look at

drishtis in a different manner as I have clarified in my many mails, on

the subject. The reason I distinguish between the graha and rasi drishti

has to do with the dynamic and static mature of the two drishtis. But

that is a subject which will take too much of the space and could raise

hackles of many that may not agree with my views.

Chandrashekhar.

Krishnamurthy Seetharama wrote:

>

> Dear Chandrashekar ji,

>

> Thanks for sharing your views.

>

> Let me ask a related question for better understanding of what

> you have said. Let us assume that the grahadrishties of planets

> in Rasi are looked at using Grahasphutadrishti, then can we say

> that we would have covered all the graha drishties in the first

> harmonic varga charts? Have you tried out exercise? If so,

> please share your experience.

>

> Regards,

> Krishna

>

> --- Chandrashekhar <chandrashekhar46

> <chandrashekhar46%40.co.uk>> wrote:

>

> > Dear Krishna,

> >

> > The reason for aspects being allowed within D-charts may have

> > to do with

> > the " Grahasphutadrishtikathanaadhyaaya " where evaluation of

> > different

> > aspects of grahas are given and they range from 30 degrees

> > onwards in

> > increments of 0.30 degrees each till 299.30 as per table given

> > by Late

> > R. Santanam. There is no repetition of amshas attributed to

> > one rasi

> > within a rasi in the first harmonic chart class and therefore

> > these

> > drishtis become applicable. In higher harmonics these may not

> > be

> > applicable as rasi equivalent Varga will repeat, within 30

> > degrees and

> > that is why I personally would look at rasi drishti there.

> >

> > Of course the above is my personal opinion on the logic behind

> > the

> > aspects, within D-Charts, and the way they may be considered

> > and it is

> > up to the learned to decide whether this view is right or not.

> >

> > Chandrashekhar.

> >

> > Krishnamurthy Seetharama wrote:

> > >

> > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji,

> > >

> > > Thanks for this mail and the translation of the Shloka in

> > BPHS.

> > > I guess it has been conclusively proven that the aspects are

> > > allowed in the six divisional charts. I am not sure if

> > everyone

> > > gets convinced or not, I am relieved for sure. And, I am

> > happy

> > > that I am in the right path.

> > >

> > > However, the question remains that what is the principle

> > behind

> > > allowing aspects in the divisional charts, even if they are

> > a

> > > restricted set.

> > >

> > > I guess the ancient authors have not explained the principle

> > > behind the same. However, I would be very glad if you could

> > > share your thoughts on this.

> > >

> > > Regards,

> > > Krishna

> > >

> > > --- Chandrashekhar <chandrashekhar46

> <chandrashekhar46%40.co.uk>

> > > <chandrashekhar46%40.co.uk>> wrote:

> > >

> > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > >

> > > > I do not know what you are trying to prove here. However,

> > the

> > > > translation is pretty straight forward and is:

> > > >

> > > > " O, Learned brahmin, if the six divisions of the ascendant

> > are

> > > > occupied

> > > > or aspected by the same graha, a raj yoga is formed,

> > without

> > > > doubt. If

> > > > the aspect is full the results are full, if half, so are

> > the

> > > > results

> > > > half and if 1/4th the yoga fructifies at 1/4th strength. "

> > > >

> > > > This indicates that Parashara is talking about graha

> > drishti

> > > > here. No

> > > > doubt about that. rasi drishti are full drishtis. This is

> > > > apparently so

> > > > as one of the 6 Vargas is navamsha where graha drishti can

> > be

> > > > seen. This

> > > > also means that Parashara is not himself accepting the 2

> > rasi

> > > > hora

> > > > (Chandra and Surya) system that is proposed by Varaha

> > Mihira.

> > > > So if you

> > > > accept the shloka as it is then you have to forget the

> > Hora

> > > > interpretation of Brihat jataka and Dashaadhyaayi. Is that

> > > > acceptable to

> > > > you?

> > > >

> > > > If you read Santanam's comment on it the fact that aspects

> > in

> > > > divisional

> > > > charts are given in that shloka, is accepted by him,

> > though he

> > > > expresses

> > > > that he is unable to fully conceive the logic of these

> > > > aspects.

> > > >

> > > > So do I, now, presume that you are accepting aspects in

> > > > D-Charts, now

> > > > that you have quoted the shloka and the supremacy of BPHS

> > over

> > > >

> > > > Dashaadhyaayi?

> > > >

> > > > Let me make it clear that I personally do not treat one

> > > > classic superior

> > > > or inferior to other, but this is what appears to be

> > Pradeep's

> > > > view as

> > > > he is quoting the shloka in support of his argument.

> > > >

> > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > >

> > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > >

> > > > > The shloka numbers as requested are -

> > > > >

> > > > > Chapter - 39,Adha Rajayogadhyaya,shloka 13 & 14.I am

> > also

> > > > providing

> > > > > the sanskrit link(pdf) so that you can read them without

> > any

> > > > fonts.

> > > > >

> > > > > http://sanskritdocuments.org/all_pdf/par3140.pdf

> <http://sanskritdocuments.org/all_pdf/par3140.pdf>

> > > <http://sanskritdocuments.org/all_pdf/par3140.pdf

> <http://sanskritdocuments.org/all_pdf/par3140.pdf>>

> > > > > <http://sanskritdocuments.org/all_pdf/par3140.pdf

> <http://sanskritdocuments.org/all_pdf/par3140.pdf>

> > > <http://sanskritdocuments.org/all_pdf/par3140.pdf

> <http://sanskritdocuments.org/all_pdf/par3140.pdf>>>

> > > > >

> > > > > Respect

> > > > > Pradeep

> > > > >

> <%40>

> > > <%40>

> > > > > <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> > > > > <chandrashekhar46 wrote:

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > > >

> > > > > > If the entire comment on a shloka is not given then it

> > is

> > > > obvious

> > > > > that

> > > > > > only selective position is given.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > I am, perhaps, perceived to be drifting away from the

> > > > point as you

> > > > > are

> > > > > > bringing in too many points in the thread, and leaving

> > > > them off

> > > > > when

> > > > > > evidence to the contrary is given by any of the

> > members to

> > > > the

> > > > > list. You

> > > > > > began by stating the Jaimini sutra as coming from BPHS

> > and

> > > > then

> > > > > went on

> > > > > > to say that BPHS says that aspects are not possible in

> > > > D-Charts.

> > > > > Then

> > > > > > you said that KNR does not consider aspects in

> > D-Charts.

> > > > Then

> > > > > followed

> > > > > > the argument that Santanam does not consider aspects

> > in

> > > > D-Charts.

> > > > > > Whenever anybody produced evidence to the contrary you

> > > > changed the

> > > > > > subject to quote someone else. Same happens with your

> > > > translation

> > > > > of

> > > > > > shlokas and also trying to project that some sage has

> > > > prohibited

> > > > > use of

> > > > > > any chart other than rasi chart. I had quoted on the

> > > > authority of

> > > > > > Parashara that he specifically tells to draw charts

> > for

> > > > Bhava,

> > > > > Ghatika,

> > > > > > Hora lagnas and then you suddenly changed the

> > direction of

> > > > the

> > > > > > discussion instead of accepting or rejecting the

> > quotes.

> > > > Even the

> >

> === message truncated ===

>

> ________

> Be a better Globetrotter. Get better travel answers from someone who

> knows. Answers - Check it out.

> http://answers./dir/?link=list & sid=396545469

> <http://answers./dir/?link=list & sid=396545469>

>

> ------

>

> Version: 7.5.476 / Virus Database: 269.10.17/915 - Release 7/24/2007

1:50 PM

>

July 27, 2007

Dear Pradeep,

If you are referring to Queen Margrethe's chart. I am sure you must have

also sen my mail giving her correct time of birth and the link where it

is available. This shows that your contention is wrong as it is based on

wrong data.

Chandrashekhar.

vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

>

> Dear Chandrashekhar Ji

>

> I have given the case where not only outer planets but any planet can

> aspect and conjunct.Pls see the mail send to Inderjit ji.

>

> Respect

> Pradeep

>

> <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> <chandrashekhar46 wrote:

> >

> > Dear Pradeep,

> >

> > I am referring with respect to one planet aspecting all 6

> shadvargas in

> > rasi chart only as proposed by you. If the shad Vargas are taken to

> > different rasis, I do not see how any planets other than the outer

> > planets can aspect all Vargas in rasi chart. In some of the charts

> > considered for Shadvargas, even the outer planets may not be able

> to

> > aspect all six shadvargas if they lie in different rasis in rasi

> charts.

> >

> > It is not the question of my accepting an example, it is the

> question of

> > the learned finding out for themselves by as I said taking a bit of

> > trouble and then making up their mind. It is even better if they

> apply

> > the yogas to real life charts and decide whether they are borne out

> by

> > the known results. Contrived hypothetical chart to suit one's

> argument

> > is not a very good way to test the principles given by the sages.

> >

> > Chandrashekhar.

> >

> > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > >

> > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > >

> > > It seems you have not understood the concept.Lagnas shadvargas

> need

> > > not fall in lagna or should they be in a single rashi.

> > >

> > > Some of them can be in one rashi and others in different.The

> > > aspecting planet should be the same.

> > >

> > > If it is still not clear,i will give you example.

> > >

> > > But the question is if an example is given ,will you accepet the

> > > point.

> > >

> > > Respect

> > > Pradeep

> > >

> <%40>

> > > <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Dear Satish,

> > > >

> > > > As the shadvargas are to fall in only one rasi, as being

> > > propounded,

> > > > then the shadvargas of Lagna should all be in Lagna is it not

> so?

> > > And

> > > > there is no mention of only the outer planets being qualified to

> > > aspect

> > > > in the shloka. Or is there any such mention that I have missed?

> > > >

> > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > >

> > > > SPK wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > > Chadrashekharji,

> > > > >

> > > > > Why the lagna shadavarga has to fall in one rashi ?

> > > > > Say that the graha that is going to aspect the

> > > > > shadvargas is outer planet, it can occupy one rashi

> > > > > and aspect three others so that covers 4 rashis in the

> > > > > rashi chart. So if the lagna shadvarga are contained

> > > > > in those 4 rashis the same planet can aspect all the

> > > > > shadavargas in rashi chart alone.( many times navansha

> > > > > and dashamsha lagnas are same rashi). So if the

> > > > > shadavargas of lagna are only 4 rashis( quite

> > > > > possible) then a planet aspecting the 4 rashis in

> > > > > rashi chart is quite possible.

> > > > >

> > > > > Thanks

> > > > >

> > > > > Satish

> > > > > --- Chandrashekhar <chandrashekhar46@

> > > > > <chandrashekhar46%40.co.uk>>

> > > > > wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > > > Dear Satish,

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Why not take some value for the X,Y and Zs and find

> > > > > > out if all the six

> > > > > > Vargas that the graha occupies can fall in one rasi

> > > > > > and be aspected by

> > > > > > the same graha in one rasi, if the argument that

> > > > > > aspects should not be

> > > > > > seen in Vargas is to be accepted. I have not done

> > > > > > that exercise myself

> > > > > > as I would like to see those desirous of knowing

> > > > > > what sages meant to

> > > > > > find out for themselves.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > SPK wrote:

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Chadrashekharji,

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > The way this can be interpreted as follows.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Take any rashi chart and D-1 lagna

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Say navansha lagna is X,

> > > > > > > dwadashamsha lagna rashi Y

> > > > > > > Dreshkona lagna rashi Z, etc, etc.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Now lets say a planet posited in the rashi

> > > > > > chart(D-1)

> > > > > > > resides in or aspects rashi X, rashi Y, rashi Z,

> > > > > > etc,

> > > > > > > etc. then that will fulfill the condition of the

> > > > > > > shloka in rashi chart with aspects taken in rashi

> > > > > > > chart. Why is that not possible ?

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Thanks

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Satish

> > > > > > > --- Chandrashekhar <chandrashekhar46@

> > > > > <chandrashekhar46%40.co.uk>

> > > > > > > <chandrashekhar46%40.co.uk>>

> > > > > > > wrote:

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Dear Satish,

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > I have given the translation of the shloka. It

> > > > > > is up

> > > > > > > > to the learned to

> > > > > > > > find out whether it is indeed possible for a

> > > > > > graha

> > > > > > > > to occupy a

> > > > > > > > particular amsha and occupy all the six Vargas

> > > > > > > > equivalent to the rashi

> > > > > > > > occupied, in one and the same rashi and that too

> > > > > > for

> > > > > > > > all rasis. Only

> > > > > > > > then can one say that the reference is not to

> > > > > > > > drishti within a D-Chart.

> > > > > > > > I doubt that can be the case. However as I said

> > > > > > it

> > > > > > > > is for the learned

> > > > > > > > for put in a bit of effort and find out for

> > > > > > > > themselves.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > SPK wrote:

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Hi,

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Thanks Chandrashekharji for the traslation of

> > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > shloka.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Again I am not sure how can one conclusively

> > > > > > say

> > > > > > > > sage

> > > > > > > > > is sactioning aspects in divisions ? This has

> > > > > > been

> > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > debate for years. Six divisions of lagna. Can

> > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > divisions of lagna exist in rashi chart ?

> > > > > > Ofcourse

> > > > > > > > > they can. Is there anything in the shloka that

> > > > > > > > > suggests that the aspect has to be seen in

> > > > > > > > divisions.

> > > > > > > > > Can the same graha aspect or occupy the six

> > > > > > > > divisions

> > > > > > > > > of lagna in the rashi chart ?

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Thanks

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Satish

> > > > > > > > > --- Krishnamurthy Seetharama

> > > > > > > > <krishna_1998@ <krishna_1998%40>

> > > > > > <krishna_1998%40>

> > > > > > > > > <krishna_1998%40>>

> > > > > > > > > wrote:

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji,

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Thanks for this mail and the translation of

> > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > Shloka in BPHS.

> > > > > > > > > > I guess it has been conclusively proven that

> > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > aspects are

> > > > > > > > > > allowed in the six divisional charts. I am

> > > > > > not

> > > > > > > > sure

> > > > > > > > > > if everyone

> > > > > > > > > > gets convinced or not, I am relieved for

> > > > > > sure.

> > > > > > > > And,

> > > > > > > > > > I am happy

> > > > > > > > > > that I am in the right path.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > However, the question remains that what is

> > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > principle behind

> > > > > > > > > > allowing aspects in the divisional charts,

> > > > > > even

> > > > > > > > if

> > > > > > > > > > they are a

> > > > > > > > > > restricted set.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > I guess the ancient authors have not

> > > > > > explained

> > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > principle

> > > > > > > > > > behind the same. However, I would be very

> > > > > > glad

> > > > > > > > if

> > > > > > > > > > you could

> > > > > > > > > > share your thoughts on this.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Regards,

> > > > > > > > > > Krishna

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > --- Chandrashekhar

> > > > > > <chandrashekhar46@ <chandrashekhar46%40.co.uk>

> > > > > > > <chandrashekhar46%40.co.uk>

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > <chandrashekhar46%40.co.uk>>

> > > > > > > > > > wrote:

> > > > > > > > > >

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

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > I do not know what you are trying to prove

> > > > > > > > here.

> > > > > > > > > > However, the

> > > > > > > > > > > translation is pretty straight forward and

> > > > > > is:

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > " O, Learned brahmin, if the six divisions

> > > > > > of

> > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > ascendant are

> > > > > > > > > > > occupied

> > > > > > > > > > > or aspected by the same graha, a raj yoga

> > > > > > is

> > > > > > > > > > formed, without

> > > > > > > > > > > doubt. If

> > > > > > > > > > > the aspect is full the results are full,

> > > > > > if

> > > > > > > > half,

> > > > > > > > > > so are the

> > > > > > > > > > > results

> > > > > > > > > > > half and if 1/4th the yoga fructifies at

> > > > > > 1/4th

> > > > > > > > > > strength. "

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > This indicates that Parashara is talking

> > > > > > about

> > > > > > > > > > graha drishti

> > > > > > > > > > > here. No

> > > > > > > > > > > doubt about that. rasi drishti are full

> > > > > > > > drishtis.

> > > > > > > > > > This is

> > > > > > > > > > > apparently so

> > > > > > > > > > > as one of the 6 Vargas is navamsha where

> > > > > > graha

> > > > > > > > > > drishti can be

> > > > > > > > > > > seen. This

> > > > > > > > > > > also means that Parashara is not himself

> > > > > > > > accepting

> > > > > > > > > > the 2 rasi

> > > > > > > > > > > hora

> > > > > > > > > > > (Chandra and Surya) system that is

> > > > > > proposed by

> > > > > > > > > > Varaha Mihira.

> > > > > > > > > > > So if you

> > > > > > > > > > > accept the shloka as it is then you have

> > > > > > to

> > > > > > > > forget

> > > > > > > > > > the Hora

> > > > > > > > > > > interpretation of Brihat jataka and

> > > > > > > > Dashaadhyaayi.

> > > > > > > > > > Is that

> > > > > > > > > > > acceptable to

> > > > > >

> > > > > === message truncated ===

> > > > >

> > > > > ________

> > > > > oneSearch: Finally, mobile search

> > > > > that gives answers, not web links.

> > > > > http://mobile./mobileweb/onesearch?refer=1ONXIC

> <http://mobile./mobileweb/onesearch?refer=1ONXIC>

> > > <http://mobile./mobileweb/onesearch?refer=1ONXIC

> <http://mobile./mobileweb/onesearch?refer=1ONXIC>>

> > > > > <http://mobile./mobileweb/onesearch?refer=1ONXIC

> <http://mobile./mobileweb/onesearch?refer=1ONXIC>

> > > <http://mobile./mobileweb/onesearch?refer=1ONXIC

> <http://mobile./mobileweb/onesearch?refer=1ONXIC>>>

> > > > >

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

> > > ------

> > > > >

> > > > > Version: 7.5.476 / Virus Database: 269.10.17/915 - Release

> Date:

> > > 7/24/2007 1:50 PM

> > > > >

> > > >

July 27, 2007

Dear Chandrashekhar ji

It was not Queens case.Queens case however showed us lagnas

shadvargas need not fall in Lagna always.If the time was 10.30 then

example is clear.

Other is certain vargas falling in Lagna,a planet in Lagna and rest

of the vargas falling in the 7th house.Thus outer planets are not

needed.7th aspect is sufficient.

Respect

Pradeep

, Chandrashekhar

<chandrashekhar46 wrote:

>

> Dear Pradeep,

>

> If you are referring to Queen Margrethe's chart. I am sure you

must have

> also sen my mail giving her correct time of birth and the link

where it

> is available. This shows that your contention is wrong as it is

based on

> wrong data.

>

> Chandrashekhar.

>

> vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> >

> > Dear Chandrashekhar Ji

> >

> > I have given the case where not only outer planets but any

planet can

> > aspect and conjunct.Pls see the mail send to Inderjit ji.

> >

> > Respect

> > Pradeep

> >

> > <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > >

> > > Dear Pradeep,

> > >

> > > I am referring with respect to one planet aspecting all 6

> > shadvargas in

> > > rasi chart only as proposed by you. If the shad Vargas are

taken to

> > > different rasis, I do not see how any planets other than the

outer

> > > planets can aspect all Vargas in rasi chart. In some of the

charts

> > > considered for Shadvargas, even the outer planets may not be

able

> > to

> > > aspect all six shadvargas if they lie in different rasis in

rasi

> > charts.

> > >

> > > It is not the question of my accepting an example, it is the

> > question of

> > > the learned finding out for themselves by as I said taking a

bit of

> > > trouble and then making up their mind. It is even better if

they

> > apply

> > > the yogas to real life charts and decide whether they are

borne out

> > by

> > > the known results. Contrived hypothetical chart to suit one's

> > argument

> > > is not a very good way to test the principles given by the

sages.

> > >

> > > Chandrashekhar.

> > >

> > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > >

> > > > It seems you have not understood the concept.Lagnas

shadvargas

> > need

> > > > not fall in lagna or should they be in a single rashi.

> > > >

> > > > Some of them can be in one rashi and others in different.The

> > > > aspecting planet should be the same.

> > > >

> > > > If it is still not clear,i will give you example.

> > > >

> > > > But the question is if an example is given ,will you accepet

the

> > > > point.

> > > >

> > > > Respect

> > > > Pradeep

> > > >

> > <%40>

> > > > <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > > Dear Satish,

> > > > >

> > > > > As the shadvargas are to fall in only one rasi, as being

> > > > propounded,

> > > > > then the shadvargas of Lagna should all be in Lagna is it

not

> > so?

> > > > And

> > > > > there is no mention of only the outer planets being

qualified to

> > > > aspect

> > > > > in the shloka. Or is there any such mention that I have

missed?

> > > > >

> > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > >

> > > > > SPK wrote:

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Chadrashekharji,

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Why the lagna shadavarga has to fall in one rashi ?

> > > > > > Say that the graha that is going to aspect the

> > > > > > shadvargas is outer planet, it can occupy one rashi

> > > > > > and aspect three others so that covers 4 rashis in the

> > > > > > rashi chart. So if the lagna shadvarga are contained

> > > > > > in those 4 rashis the same planet can aspect all the

> > > > > > shadavargas in rashi chart alone.( many times navansha

> > > > > > and dashamsha lagnas are same rashi). So if the

> > > > > > shadavargas of lagna are only 4 rashis( quite

> > > > > > possible) then a planet aspecting the 4 rashis in

> > > > > > rashi chart is quite possible.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Thanks

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Satish

> > > > > > --- Chandrashekhar <chandrashekhar46@

> > > > > > <chandrashekhar46%40.co.uk>>

> > > > > > wrote:

> > > > > >

> > > > > > > Dear Satish,

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Why not take some value for the X,Y and Zs and find

> > > > > > > out if all the six

> > > > > > > Vargas that the graha occupies can fall in one rasi

> > > > > > > and be aspected by

> > > > > > > the same graha in one rasi, if the argument that

> > > > > > > aspects should not be

> > > > > > > seen in Vargas is to be accepted. I have not done

> > > > > > > that exercise myself

> > > > > > > as I would like to see those desirous of knowing

> > > > > > > what sages meant to

> > > > > > > find out for themselves.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > SPK wrote:

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Chadrashekharji,

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > The way this can be interpreted as follows.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Take any rashi chart and D-1 lagna

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Say navansha lagna is X,

> > > > > > > > dwadashamsha lagna rashi Y

> > > > > > > > Dreshkona lagna rashi Z, etc, etc.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Now lets say a planet posited in the rashi

> > > > > > > chart(D-1)

> > > > > > > > resides in or aspects rashi X, rashi Y, rashi Z,

> > > > > > > etc,

> > > > > > > > etc. then that will fulfill the condition of the

> > > > > > > > shloka in rashi chart with aspects taken in rashi

> > > > > > > > chart. Why is that not possible ?

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Thanks

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Satish

> > > > > > > > --- Chandrashekhar <chandrashekhar46@

> > > > > > <chandrashekhar46%40.co.uk>

> > > > > > > > <chandrashekhar46%40.co.uk>>

> > > > > > > > wrote:

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Dear Satish,

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > I have given the translation of the shloka. It

> > > > > > > is up

> > > > > > > > > to the learned to

> > > > > > > > > find out whether it is indeed possible for a

> > > > > > > graha

> > > > > > > > > to occupy a

> > > > > > > > > particular amsha and occupy all the six Vargas

> > > > > > > > > equivalent to the rashi

> > > > > > > > > occupied, in one and the same rashi and that too

> > > > > > > for

> > > > > > > > > all rasis. Only

> > > > > > > > > then can one say that the reference is not to

> > > > > > > > > drishti within a D-Chart.

> > > > > > > > > I doubt that can be the case. However as I said

> > > > > > > it

> > > > > > > > > is for the learned

> > > > > > > > > for put in a bit of effort and find out for

> > > > > > > > > themselves.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > SPK wrote:

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Hi,

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Thanks Chandrashekharji for the traslation of

> > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > shloka.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Again I am not sure how can one conclusively

> > > > > > > say

> > > > > > > > > sage

> > > > > > > > > > is sactioning aspects in divisions ? This has

> > > > > > > been

> > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > debate for years. Six divisions of lagna. Can

> > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > divisions of lagna exist in rashi chart ?

> > > > > > > Ofcourse

> > > > > > > > > > they can. Is there anything in the shloka that

> > > > > > > > > > suggests that the aspect has to be seen in

> > > > > > > > > divisions.

> > > > > > > > > > Can the same graha aspect or occupy the six

> > > > > > > > > divisions

> > > > > > > > > > of lagna in the rashi chart ?

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Thanks

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Satish

> > > > > > > > > > --- Krishnamurthy Seetharama

> > > > > > > > > <krishna_1998@ <krishna_1998%40>

> > > > > > > <krishna_1998%40>

> > > > > > > > > > <krishna_1998%40>>

> > > > > > > > > > wrote:

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji,

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for this mail and the translation of

> > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > Shloka in BPHS.

> > > > > > > > > > > I guess it has been conclusively proven that

> > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > aspects are

> > > > > > > > > > > allowed in the six divisional charts. I am

> > > > > > > not

> > > > > > > > > sure

> > > > > > > > > > > if everyone

> > > > > > > > > > > gets convinced or not, I am relieved for

> > > > > > > sure.

> > > > > > > > > And,

> > > > > > > > > > > I am happy

> > > > > > > > > > > that I am in the right path.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > However, the question remains that what is

> > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > principle behind

> > > > > > > > > > > allowing aspects in the divisional charts,

> > > > > > > even

> > > > > > > > > if

> > > > > > > > > > > they are a

> > > > > > > > > > > restricted set.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > I guess the ancient authors have not

> > > > > > > explained

> > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > principle

> > > > > > > > > > > behind the same. However, I would be very

> > > > > > > glad

> > > > > > > > > if

> > > > > > > > > > > you could

> > > > > > > > > > > share your thoughts on this.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Regards,

> > > > > > > > > > > Krishna

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > --- Chandrashekhar

> > > > > > > <chandrashekhar46@ <chandrashekhar46%

40.co.uk>

> > > > > > > > <chandrashekhar46%40.co.uk>

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > <chandrashekhar46%40.co.uk>>

> > > > > > > > > > > wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > >

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

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

> > > > > > > > > > > > I do not know what you are trying to prove

> > > > > > > > > here.

> > > > > > > > > > > However, the

> > > > > > > > > > > > translation is pretty straight forward and

> > > > > > > is:

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

> > > > > > > > > > > > " O, Learned brahmin, if the six divisions

> > > > > > > of

> > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > ascendant are

> > > > > > > > > > > > occupied

> > > > > > > > > > > > or aspected by the same graha, a raj yoga

> > > > > > > is

> > > > > > > > > > > formed, without

> > > > > > > > > > > > doubt. If

> > > > > > > > > > > > the aspect is full the results are full,

> > > > > > > if

> > > > > > > > > half,

> > > > > > > > > > > so are the

> > > > > > > > > > > > results

> > > > > > > > > > > > half and if 1/4th the yoga fructifies at

> > > > > > > 1/4th

> > > > > > > > > > > strength. "

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

> > > > > > > > > > > > This indicates that Parashara is talking

> > > > > > > about

> > > > > > > > > > > graha drishti

> > > > > > > > > > > > here. No

> > > > > > > > > > > > doubt about that. rasi drishti are full

> > > > > > > > > drishtis.

> > > > > > > > > > > This is

> > > > > > > > > > > > apparently so

> > > > > > > > > > > > as one of the 6 Vargas is navamsha where

> > > > > > > graha

> > > > > > > > > > > drishti can be

> > > > > > > > > > > > seen. This

> > > > > > > > > > > > also means that Parashara is not himself

> > > > > > > > > accepting

> > > > > > > > > > > the 2 rasi

> > > > > > > > > > > > hora

> > > > > > > > > > > > (Chandra and Surya) system that is

> > > > > > > proposed by

> > > > > > > > > > > Varaha Mihira.

> > > > > > > > > > > > So if you

> > > > > > > > > > > > accept the shloka as it is then you have

> > > > > > > to

> > > > > > > > > forget

> > > > > > > > > > > the Hora

> > > > > > > > > > > > interpretation of Brihat jataka and

> > > > > > > > > Dashaadhyaayi.

> > > > > > > > > > > Is that

> > > > > > > > > > > > acceptable to

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > === message truncated ===

> > > > > >

________

> > > > > > oneSearch: Finally, mobile search

> > > > > > that gives answers, not web links.

> > > > > > http://mobile./mobileweb/onesearch?refer=1ONXIC

> > <http://mobile./mobileweb/onesearch?refer=1ONXIC>

> > > > <http://mobile./mobileweb/onesearch?refer=1ONXIC

> > <http://mobile./mobileweb/onesearch?refer=1ONXIC>>

> > > > > > <http://mobile./mobileweb/onesearch?

refer=1ONXIC

> > <http://mobile./mobileweb/onesearch?refer=1ONXIC>

> > > > <http://mobile./mobileweb/onesearch?refer=1ONXIC

> > <http://mobile./mobileweb/onesearch?refer=1ONXIC>>>

> > > > > >

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

-

> > > > ------

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Version: 7.5.476 / Virus Database: 269.10.17/915 -

Release

> > Date:

> > > > 7/24/2007 1:50 PM

> > > > > >

> > > > >

July 27, 2007

Dear Pradeep,

Unfortunately in the Queen's case, the time is 10.10 and there is also a

chart on the link that I gave you. So the surmise is wrong. The chart

does not prove what you set out to prove. By the way, in the Queen's

case even Jupiter aspects the Lagna by 5th aspect so the outer planet is

something that you were talking about here. Or did I miss some other

planet that occupies the 7th. I do not find any in her 7th bhava, wither

in Rasi or navamsha chart.

Chandrashekhar.

vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

>

> Dear Chandrashekhar ji

>

> It was not Queens case.Queens case however showed us lagnas

> shadvargas need not fall in Lagna always.If the time was 10.30 then

> example is clear.

>

> Other is certain vargas falling in Lagna,a planet in Lagna and rest

> of the vargas falling in the 7th house.Thus outer planets are not

> needed.7th aspect is sufficient.

>

> Respect

> Pradeep

>

> <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> <chandrashekhar46 wrote:

> >

> > Dear Pradeep,

> >

> > If you are referring to Queen Margrethe's chart. I am sure you

> must have

> > also sen my mail giving her correct time of birth and the link

> where it

> > is available. This shows that your contention is wrong as it is

> based on

> > wrong data.

> >

> > Chandrashekhar.

> >

> > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > >

> > > Dear Chandrashekhar Ji

> > >

> > > I have given the case where not only outer planets but any

> planet can

> > > aspect and conjunct.Pls see the mail send to Inderjit ji.

> > >

> > > Respect

> > > Pradeep

> > >

> <%40>

> > > <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > >

> > > > I am referring with respect to one planet aspecting all 6

> > > shadvargas in

> > > > rasi chart only as proposed by you. If the shad Vargas are

> taken to

> > > > different rasis, I do not see how any planets other than the

> outer

> > > > planets can aspect all Vargas in rasi chart. In some of the

> charts

> > > > considered for Shadvargas, even the outer planets may not be

> able

> > > to

> > > > aspect all six shadvargas if they lie in different rasis in

> rasi

> > > charts.

> > > >

> > > > It is not the question of my accepting an example, it is the

> > > question of

> > > > the learned finding out for themselves by as I said taking a

> bit of

> > > > trouble and then making up their mind. It is even better if

> they

> > > apply

> > > > the yogas to real life charts and decide whether they are

> borne out

> > > by

> > > > the known results. Contrived hypothetical chart to suit one's

> > > argument

> > > > is not a very good way to test the principles given by the

> sages.

> > > >

> > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > >

> > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > >

> > > > > It seems you have not understood the concept.Lagnas

> shadvargas

> > > need

> > > > > not fall in lagna or should they be in a single rashi.

> > > > >

> > > > > Some of them can be in one rashi and others in different.The

> > > > > aspecting planet should be the same.

> > > > >

> > > > > If it is still not clear,i will give you example.

> > > > >

> > > > > But the question is if an example is given ,will you accepet

> the

> > > > > point.

> > > > >

> > > > > Respect

> > > > > Pradeep

> > > > >

> <%40>

> > > <%40>

> > > > > <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Dear Satish,

> > > > > >

> > > > > > As the shadvargas are to fall in only one rasi, as being

> > > > > propounded,

> > > > > > then the shadvargas of Lagna should all be in Lagna is it

> not

> > > so?

> > > > > And

> > > > > > there is no mention of only the outer planets being

> qualified to

> > > > > aspect

> > > > > > in the shloka. Or is there any such mention that I have

> missed?

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > SPK wrote:

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Chadrashekharji,

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Why the lagna shadavarga has to fall in one rashi ?

> > > > > > > Say that the graha that is going to aspect the

> > > > > > > shadvargas is outer planet, it can occupy one rashi

> > > > > > > and aspect three others so that covers 4 rashis in the

> > > > > > > rashi chart. So if the lagna shadvarga are contained

> > > > > > > in those 4 rashis the same planet can aspect all the

> > > > > > > shadavargas in rashi chart alone.( many times navansha

> > > > > > > and dashamsha lagnas are same rashi). So if the

> > > > > > > shadavargas of lagna are only 4 rashis( quite

> > > > > > > possible) then a planet aspecting the 4 rashis in

> > > > > > > rashi chart is quite possible.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Thanks

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Satish

> > > > > > > --- Chandrashekhar <chandrashekhar46@

> > > > > > > <chandrashekhar46%40.co.uk>>

> > > > > > > wrote:

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Dear Satish,

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Why not take some value for the X,Y and Zs and find

> > > > > > > > out if all the six

> > > > > > > > Vargas that the graha occupies can fall in one rasi

> > > > > > > > and be aspected by

> > > > > > > > the same graha in one rasi, if the argument that

> > > > > > > > aspects should not be

> > > > > > > > seen in Vargas is to be accepted. I have not done

> > > > > > > > that exercise myself

> > > > > > > > as I would like to see those desirous of knowing

> > > > > > > > what sages meant to

> > > > > > > > find out for themselves.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > SPK wrote:

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Chadrashekharji,

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > The way this can be interpreted as follows.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Take any rashi chart and D-1 lagna

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Say navansha lagna is X,

> > > > > > > > > dwadashamsha lagna rashi Y

> > > > > > > > > Dreshkona lagna rashi Z, etc, etc.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Now lets say a planet posited in the rashi

> > > > > > > > chart(D-1)

> > > > > > > > > resides in or aspects rashi X, rashi Y, rashi Z,

> > > > > > > > etc,

> > > > > > > > > etc. then that will fulfill the condition of the

> > > > > > > > > shloka in rashi chart with aspects taken in rashi

> > > > > > > > > chart. Why is that not possible ?

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Thanks

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Satish

> > > > > > > > > --- Chandrashekhar <chandrashekhar46@

> > > > > > > <chandrashekhar46%40.co.uk>

> > > > > > > > > <chandrashekhar46%40.co.uk>>

> > > > > > > > > wrote:

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Dear Satish,

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > I have given the translation of the shloka. It

> > > > > > > > is up

> > > > > > > > > > to the learned to

> > > > > > > > > > find out whether it is indeed possible for a

> > > > > > > > graha

> > > > > > > > > > to occupy a

> > > > > > > > > > particular amsha and occupy all the six Vargas

> > > > > > > > > > equivalent to the rashi

> > > > > > > > > > occupied, in one and the same rashi and that too

> > > > > > > > for

> > > > > > > > > > all rasis. Only

> > > > > > > > > > then can one say that the reference is not to

> > > > > > > > > > drishti within a D-Chart.

> > > > > > > > > > I doubt that can be the case. However as I said

> > > > > > > > it

> > > > > > > > > > is for the learned

> > > > > > > > > > for put in a bit of effort and find out for

> > > > > > > > > > themselves.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > SPK wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Hi,

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Thanks Chandrashekharji for the traslation of

> > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > shloka.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Again I am not sure how can one conclusively

> > > > > > > > say

> > > > > > > > > > sage

> > > > > > > > > > > is sactioning aspects in divisions ? This has

> > > > > > > > been

> > > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > debate for years. Six divisions of lagna. Can

> > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > divisions of lagna exist in rashi chart ?

> > > > > > > > Ofcourse

> > > > > > > > > > > they can. Is there anything in the shloka that

> > > > > > > > > > > suggests that the aspect has to be seen in

> > > > > > > > > > divisions.

> > > > > > > > > > > Can the same graha aspect or occupy the six

> > > > > > > > > > divisions

> > > > > > > > > > > of lagna in the rashi chart ?

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Thanks

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Satish

> > > > > > > > > > > --- Krishnamurthy Seetharama

> > > > > > > > > > <krishna_1998@ <krishna_1998%40>

> > > > > > > > <krishna_1998%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > <krishna_1998%40>>

> > > > > > > > > > > wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji,

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

> > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for this mail and the translation of

> > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > Shloka in BPHS.

> > > > > > > > > > > > I guess it has been conclusively proven that

> > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > aspects are

> > > > > > > > > > > > allowed in the six divisional charts. I am

> > > > > > > > not

> > > > > > > > > > sure

> > > > > > > > > > > > if everyone

> > > > > > > > > > > > gets convinced or not, I am relieved for

> > > > > > > > sure.

> > > > > > > > > > And,

> > > > > > > > > > > > I am happy

> > > > > > > > > > > > that I am in the right path.

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

> > > > > > > > > > > > However, the question remains that what is

> > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > principle behind

> > > > > > > > > > > > allowing aspects in the divisional charts,

> > > > > > > > even

> > > > > > > > > > if

> > > > > > > > > > > > they are a

> > > > > > > > > > > > restricted set.

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

> > > > > > > > > > > > I guess the ancient authors have not

> > > > > > > > explained

> > > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > principle

> > > > > > > > > > > > behind the same. However, I would be very

> > > > > > > > glad

> > > > > > > > > > if

> > > > > > > > > > > > you could

> > > > > > > > > > > > share your thoughts on this.

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

> > > > > > > > > > > > Regards,

> > > > > > > > > > > > Krishna

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

> > > > > > > > > > > > --- Chandrashekhar

> > > > > > > > <chandrashekhar46@ <chandrashekhar46%

> 40.co.uk>

> > > > > > > > > <chandrashekhar46%40.co.uk>

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > <chandrashekhar46%40.co.uk>>

> > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:

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

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

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

> > > > > > > > > > > > > I do not know what you are trying to prove

> > > > > > > > > > here.

> > > > > > > > > > > > However, the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > translation is pretty straight forward and

> > > > > > > > is:

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

> > > > > > > > > > > > > " O, Learned brahmin, if the six divisions

> > > > > > > > of

> > > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > ascendant are

> > > > > > > > > > > > > occupied

> > > > > > > > > > > > > or aspected by the same graha, a raj yoga

> > > > > > > > is

> > > > > > > > > > > > formed, without

> > > > > > > > > > > > > doubt. If

> > > > > > > > > > > > > the aspect is full the results are full,

> > > > > > > > if

> > > > > > > > > > half,

> > > > > > > > > > > > so are the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > results

> > > > > > > > > > > > > half and if 1/4th the yoga fructifies at

> > > > > > > > 1/4th

> > > > > > > > > > > > strength. "

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

> > > > > > > > > > > > > This indicates that Parashara is talking

> > > > > > > > about

> > > > > > > > > > > > graha drishti

> > > > > > > > > > > > > here. No

> > > > > > > > > > > > > doubt about that. rasi drishti are full

> > > > > > > > > > drishtis.

> > > > > > > > > > > > This is

> > > > > > > > > > > > > apparently so

> > > > > > > > > > > > > as one of the 6 Vargas is navamsha where

> > > > > > > > graha

> > > > > > > > > > > > drishti can be

> > > > > > > > > > > > > seen. This

> > > > > > > > > > > > > also means that Parashara is not himself

> > > > > > > > > > accepting

> > > > > > > > > > > > the 2 rasi

> > > > > > > > > > > > > hora

> > > > > > > > > > > > > (Chandra and Surya) system that is

> > > > > > > > proposed by

> > > > > > > > > > > > Varaha Mihira.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > So if you

> > > > > > > > > > > > > accept the shloka as it is then you have

> > > > > > > > to

> > > > > > > > > > forget

> > > > > > > > > > > > the Hora

> > > > > > > > > > > > > interpretation of Brihat jataka and

> > > > > > > > > > Dashaadhyaayi.

> > > > > > > > > > > > Is that

> > > > > > > > > > > > > acceptable to

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > === message truncated ===

> > > > > > >

> ________

> > > > > > > oneSearch: Finally, mobile search

> > > > > > > that gives answers, not web links.

> > > > > > > http://mobile./mobileweb/onesearch?refer=1ONXIC

> <http://mobile./mobileweb/onesearch?refer=1ONXIC>

> > > <http://mobile./mobileweb/onesearch?refer=1ONXIC

> <http://mobile./mobileweb/onesearch?refer=1ONXIC>>

> > > > > <http://mobile./mobileweb/onesearch?refer=1ONXIC

> <http://mobile./mobileweb/onesearch?refer=1ONXIC>

> > > <http://mobile./mobileweb/onesearch?refer=1ONXIC

> <http://mobile./mobileweb/onesearch?refer=1ONXIC>>>

> > > > > > > <http://mobile./mobileweb/onesearch?

> <http://mobile./mobileweb/onesearch?>

> refer=1ONXIC

> > > <http://mobile./mobileweb/onesearch?refer=1ONXIC

> <http://mobile./mobileweb/onesearch?refer=1ONXIC>>

> > > > > <http://mobile./mobileweb/onesearch?refer=1ONXIC

> <http://mobile./mobileweb/onesearch?refer=1ONXIC>

> > > <http://mobile./mobileweb/onesearch?refer=1ONXIC

> <http://mobile./mobileweb/onesearch?refer=1ONXIC>>>>

> > > > > > >

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

> -

> > > > > ------

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Version: 7.5.476 / Virus Database: 269.10.17/915 -

> Release

> > > Date:

> > > > > 7/24/2007 1:50 PM

> > > > > > >

> > > > > >

July 27, 2007

Dear Chndrashekhar ji

I had clealry said other case was given to Inderji ji.

Now as you know sage did not say that outer planets do not qualify

for this yoga.He said if any single planet -Let it be outer or inner.

Respect

Pradeep

, Chandrashekhar

<chandrashekhar46 wrote:

>

> Dear Pradeep,

>

> Unfortunately in the Queen's case, the time is 10.10 and there is

also a

> chart on the link that I gave you. So the surmise is wrong. The

chart

> does not prove what you set out to prove. By the way, in the

Queen's

> case even Jupiter aspects the Lagna by 5th aspect so the outer

planet is

> something that you were talking about here. Or did I miss some

other

> planet that occupies the 7th. I do not find any in her 7th bhava,

wither

> in Rasi or navamsha chart.

>

> Chandrashekhar.

>

> vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> >

> > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> >

> > It was not Queens case.Queens case however showed us lagnas

> > shadvargas need not fall in Lagna always.If the time was 10.30

then

> > example is clear.

> >

> > Other is certain vargas falling in Lagna,a planet in Lagna and

rest

> > of the vargas falling in the 7th house.Thus outer planets are not

> > needed.7th aspect is sufficient.

> >

> > Respect

> > Pradeep

> >

> > <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > >

> > > Dear Pradeep,

> > >

> > > If you are referring to Queen Margrethe's chart. I am sure you

> > must have

> > > also sen my mail giving her correct time of birth and the link

> > where it

> > > is available. This shows that your contention is wrong as it is

> > based on

> > > wrong data.

> > >

> > > Chandrashekhar.

> > >

> > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Dear Chandrashekhar Ji

> > > >

> > > > I have given the case where not only outer planets but any

> > planet can

> > > > aspect and conjunct.Pls see the mail send to Inderjit ji.

> > > >

> > > > Respect

> > > > Pradeep

> > > >

> > <%40>

> > > > <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > >

> > > > > I am referring with respect to one planet aspecting all 6

> > > > shadvargas in

> > > > > rasi chart only as proposed by you. If the shad Vargas are

> > taken to

> > > > > different rasis, I do not see how any planets other than the

> > outer

> > > > > planets can aspect all Vargas in rasi chart. In some of the

> > charts

> > > > > considered for Shadvargas, even the outer planets may not be

> > able

> > > > to

> > > > > aspect all six shadvargas if they lie in different rasis in

> > rasi

> > > > charts.

> > > > >

> > > > > It is not the question of my accepting an example, it is the

> > > > question of

> > > > > the learned finding out for themselves by as I said taking a

> > bit of

> > > > > trouble and then making up their mind. It is even better if

> > they

> > > > apply

> > > > > the yogas to real life charts and decide whether they are

> > borne out

> > > > by

> > > > > the known results. Contrived hypothetical chart to suit

one's

> > > > argument

> > > > > is not a very good way to test the principles given by the

> > sages.

> > > > >

> > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > >

> > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > > >

> > > > > > It seems you have not understood the concept.Lagnas

> > shadvargas

> > > > need

> > > > > > not fall in lagna or should they be in a single rashi.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Some of them can be in one rashi and others in

different.The

> > > > > > aspecting planet should be the same.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > If it is still not clear,i will give you example.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > But the question is if an example is given ,will you

accepet

> > the

> > > > > > point.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Respect

> > > > > > Pradeep

> > > > > >

> > <%40>

> > > > <%40>

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

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

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Dear Satish,

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > As the shadvargas are to fall in only one rasi, as being

> > > > > > propounded,

> > > > > > > then the shadvargas of Lagna should all be in Lagna is

it

> > not

> > > > so?

> > > > > > And

> > > > > > > there is no mention of only the outer planets being

> > qualified to

> > > > > > aspect

> > > > > > > in the shloka. Or is there any such mention that I have

> > missed?

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > SPK wrote:

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Chadrashekharji,

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Why the lagna shadavarga has to fall in one rashi ?

> > > > > > > > Say that the graha that is going to aspect the

> > > > > > > > shadvargas is outer planet, it can occupy one rashi

> > > > > > > > and aspect three others so that covers 4 rashis in the

> > > > > > > > rashi chart. So if the lagna shadvarga are contained

> > > > > > > > in those 4 rashis the same planet can aspect all the

> > > > > > > > shadavargas in rashi chart alone.( many times navansha

> > > > > > > > and dashamsha lagnas are same rashi). So if the

> > > > > > > > shadavargas of lagna are only 4 rashis( quite

> > > > > > > > possible) then a planet aspecting the 4 rashis in

> > > > > > > > rashi chart is quite possible.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Thanks

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Satish

> > > > > > > > --- Chandrashekhar <chandrashekhar46@

> > > > > > > > <chandrashekhar46%40.co.uk>>

> > > > > > > > wrote:

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Dear Satish,

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Why not take some value for the X,Y and Zs and find

> > > > > > > > > out if all the six

> > > > > > > > > Vargas that the graha occupies can fall in one rasi

> > > > > > > > > and be aspected by

> > > > > > > > > the same graha in one rasi, if the argument that

> > > > > > > > > aspects should not be

> > > > > > > > > seen in Vargas is to be accepted. I have not done

> > > > > > > > > that exercise myself

> > > > > > > > > as I would like to see those desirous of knowing

> > > > > > > > > what sages meant to

> > > > > > > > > find out for themselves.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > SPK wrote:

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Chadrashekharji,

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > The way this can be interpreted as follows.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Take any rashi chart and D-1 lagna

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Say navansha lagna is X,

> > > > > > > > > > dwadashamsha lagna rashi Y

> > > > > > > > > > Dreshkona lagna rashi Z, etc, etc.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Now lets say a planet posited in the rashi

> > > > > > > > > chart(D-1)

> > > > > > > > > > resides in or aspects rashi X, rashi Y, rashi Z,

> > > > > > > > > etc,

> > > > > > > > > > etc. then that will fulfill the condition of the

> > > > > > > > > > shloka in rashi chart with aspects taken in rashi

> > > > > > > > > > chart. Why is that not possible ?

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Thanks

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Satish

> > > > > > > > > > --- Chandrashekhar <chandrashekhar46@

> > > > > > > > <chandrashekhar46%40.co.uk>

> > > > > > > > > > <chandrashekhar46%40.co.uk>>

> > > > > > > > > > wrote:

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Dear Satish,

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > I have given the translation of the shloka. It

> > > > > > > > > is up

> > > > > > > > > > > to the learned to

> > > > > > > > > > > find out whether it is indeed possible for a

> > > > > > > > > graha

> > > > > > > > > > > to occupy a

> > > > > > > > > > > particular amsha and occupy all the six Vargas

> > > > > > > > > > > equivalent to the rashi

> > > > > > > > > > > occupied, in one and the same rashi and that too

> > > > > > > > > for

> > > > > > > > > > > all rasis. Only

> > > > > > > > > > > then can one say that the reference is not to

> > > > > > > > > > > drishti within a D-Chart.

> > > > > > > > > > > I doubt that can be the case. However as I said

> > > > > > > > > it

> > > > > > > > > > > is for the learned

> > > > > > > > > > > for put in a bit of effort and find out for

> > > > > > > > > > > themselves.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > SPK wrote:

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

> > > > > > > > > > > > Hi,

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

> > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks Chandrashekharji for the traslation of

> > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > shloka.

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

> > > > > > > > > > > > Again I am not sure how can one conclusively

> > > > > > > > > say

> > > > > > > > > > > sage

> > > > > > > > > > > > is sactioning aspects in divisions ? This has

> > > > > > > > > been

> > > > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > debate for years. Six divisions of lagna. Can

> > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > divisions of lagna exist in rashi chart ?

> > > > > > > > > Ofcourse

> > > > > > > > > > > > they can. Is there anything in the shloka that

> > > > > > > > > > > > suggests that the aspect has to be seen in

> > > > > > > > > > > divisions.

> > > > > > > > > > > > Can the same graha aspect or occupy the six

> > > > > > > > > > > divisions

> > > > > > > > > > > > of lagna in the rashi chart ?

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

> > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks

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

> > > > > > > > > > > > Satish

> > > > > > > > > > > > --- Krishnamurthy Seetharama

> > > > > > > > > > > <krishna_1998@ <krishna_1998%40>

> > > > > > > > > <krishna_1998%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > > <krishna_1998%40>>

> > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:

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

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji,

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

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for this mail and the translation of

> > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Shloka in BPHS.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > I guess it has been conclusively proven that

> > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > aspects are

> > > > > > > > > > > > > allowed in the six divisional charts. I am

> > > > > > > > > not

> > > > > > > > > > > sure

> > > > > > > > > > > > > if everyone

> > > > > > > > > > > > > gets convinced or not, I am relieved for

> > > > > > > > > sure.

> > > > > > > > > > > And,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > I am happy

> > > > > > > > > > > > > that I am in the right path.

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

> > > > > > > > > > > > > However, the question remains that what is

> > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > principle behind

> > > > > > > > > > > > > allowing aspects in the divisional charts,

> > > > > > > > > even

> > > > > > > > > > > if

> > > > > > > > > > > > > they are a

> > > > > > > > > > > > > restricted set.

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

> > > > > > > > > > > > > I guess the ancient authors have not

> > > > > > > > > explained

> > > > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > principle

> > > > > > > > > > > > > behind the same. However, I would be very

> > > > > > > > > glad

> > > > > > > > > > > if

> > > > > > > > > > > > > you could

> > > > > > > > > > > > > share your thoughts on this.

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

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Regards,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Krishna

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

> > > > > > > > > > > > > --- Chandrashekhar

> > > > > > > > > <chandrashekhar46@ <chandrashekhar46%

> > 40.co.uk>

> > > > > > > > > > <chandrashekhar46%40.co.uk>

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > <chandrashekhar46%40.co.uk>>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:

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

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

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

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > I do not know what you are trying to prove

> > > > > > > > > > > here.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > However, the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > translation is pretty straight forward and

> > > > > > > > > is:

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

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > " O, Learned brahmin, if the six divisions

> > > > > > > > > of

> > > > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > ascendant are

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > occupied

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > or aspected by the same graha, a raj yoga

> > > > > > > > > is

> > > > > > > > > > > > > formed, without

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > doubt. If

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the aspect is full the results are full,

> > > > > > > > > if

> > > > > > > > > > > half,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > so are the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > results

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > half and if 1/4th the yoga fructifies at

> > > > > > > > > 1/4th

> > > > > > > > > > > > > strength. "

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

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > This indicates that Parashara is talking

> > > > > > > > > about

> > > > > > > > > > > > > graha drishti

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > here. No

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > doubt about that. rasi drishti are full

> > > > > > > > > > > drishtis.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > This is

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > apparently so

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > as one of the 6 Vargas is navamsha where

> > > > > > > > > graha

> > > > > > > > > > > > > drishti can be

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > seen. This

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > also means that Parashara is not himself

> > > > > > > > > > > accepting

> > > > > > > > > > > > > the 2 rasi

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > hora

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > (Chandra and Surya) system that is

> > > > > > > > > proposed by

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Varaha Mihira.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > So if you

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > accept the shloka as it is then you have

> > > > > > > > > to

> > > > > > > > > > > forget

> > > > > > > > > > > > > the Hora

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > interpretation of Brihat jataka and

> > > > > > > > > > > Dashaadhyaayi.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Is that

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > acceptable to

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > === message truncated ===

> > > > > > > >

> > ________

> > > > > > > > oneSearch: Finally, mobile search

> > > > > > > > that gives answers, not web links.

> > > > > > > > http://mobile./mobileweb/onesearch?

refer=1ONXIC

> > <http://mobile./mobileweb/onesearch?refer=1ONXIC>

> > > > <http://mobile./mobileweb/onesearch?refer=1ONXIC

> > <http://mobile./mobileweb/onesearch?refer=1ONXIC>>

> > > > > > <http://mobile./mobileweb/onesearch?refer=1ONXIC

> > <http://mobile./mobileweb/onesearch?refer=1ONXIC>

> > > > <http://mobile./mobileweb/onesearch?refer=1ONXIC

> > <http://mobile./mobileweb/onesearch?refer=1ONXIC>>>

> > > > > > > > <http://mobile./mobileweb/onesearch?

> > <http://mobile./mobileweb/onesearch?>

> > refer=1ONXIC

> > > > <http://mobile./mobileweb/onesearch?refer=1ONXIC

> > <http://mobile./mobileweb/onesearch?refer=1ONXIC>>

> > > > > > <http://mobile./mobileweb/onesearch?refer=1ONXIC

> > <http://mobile./mobileweb/onesearch?refer=1ONXIC>

> > > > <http://mobile./mobileweb/onesearch?refer=1ONXIC

> > <http://mobile./mobileweb/onesearch?refer=1ONXIC>>>>

> > > > > > > >

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

---

> > -

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

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Version: 7.5.476 / Virus Database: 269.10.17/915 -

> > Release

> > > > Date:

> > > > > > 7/24/2007 1:50 PM

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

July 28, 2007

Dear Shailesh ji

Kindly see the word Institutionalisation.

You are free to have your opinion.You may reject or approve my views.

You can be silent or noisy.

It will be the same for me.Your mail is taken in the right spirit.

Regds

Pradeep

, " Shailesh C Chadha "

<scchadha wrote:

>

> Dear Pradeep,

>

> Are you sure when you say

>

> << One of the byproducts of internet technology was

institutionalisation of

> Varga Chakras>>

>

> Has NO ONE used varga chakras, or aspects in Vargas, BEFORE THE

ADVENT OF

> INTERNET??

>

> Please listen to the voice of the silent majority. you are

needlessly

> insisting on being convinced when you have yourself closed your

mind to all

> arguments and proofs to the contrary.

>

> Any post that supports your view is termed OBJECTIVE, else - as per

you - it

> is mis-interpretation.

>

> Trust you will take this mail in right spirit and spare the list

from the

> replays and re-mixes of your views.

>

> Regards,

>

> Shailesh

>

> _____

>

On

> Behalf Of vijayadas_pradeep

> Thursday, July 26, 2007 9:01 PM

>

> Re: Varge as Plural - Shloka number and

Link-Lagna

> Shadvargake

>

> Dear Satya ji

>

> I apologize if i was not clear about Internet.One of the byproducts

> of internet technology was institutionalisation of Varga Chakras.

>

> On the other hand,i would like to say that Internet has helped a

lot

> in gainiing knowledge as well to interact with many great souls.

>

> I have no disrespect and if it was felt,pls accept my apologies.

>

> Regds

> Pradeep

>

> @ <%40>

> , " Satya Sai Kolachina "

> <skolachi@> wrote:

> >

> > Dear Sri Pradeep,

> >

> > No one feels here insecure nor shaky. In am only objecting your

> > estimating others of their basics. Please do not introduce new

> words

> > and try to divert the attention of the public here. Rather I get

a

> > feeling that you feel insecure and are losing patience since even

> > after repeated telling people are not buying your views. We don't

> > have to buy your views; more so, when you take such an approach

as

> I

> > objected.

> >

> > You have over-used this word 'basics' which undermines the

> > capabilities and knowledge of several astrologers worldwide. So

> long

> > as you limit your words to your way of explaining your opinions,

> > neither I nor anyone will have objection with you. If we wish we

> > will debate, otherwise we don't. But do not say that 'go back to

> > basics' or 'learn basics', as these words explicitly undermine

> > others. In the past even Sri Satish also used the words 'those

who

> > are under the muddy waters'. Even Jagadguru Adi Sankaracharya

> never

> > used such words. He is one of the greatest mahatmas India every

> > produced. Such words will only esclate the level of ego of the

> > person expressing such words, but achieve nothing. After I raised

> > the objection, he also stopped using such words. You may be

> > aggressive putting your views. But in that process, you should

not

> > put down others' views or others' knowledge level.

> >

> > In any debate, there usually two sides of the camp and there are

> > people on both sides. Even other pepole who supproted your views

> > earlier in this thread, have not used such words as you, or

Satish

> > or even Sri Srinadh used. I never wanted to even participate when

> Mr

> > Srinadh was in this debate, after I observed the way he

interacted

> > with Sri Chandrasekhar. It was much low-level attitude and mean

> > behavior about others. That is not accepted in public forums and

> > discussions. You have to give the same level of honor and respect

> to

> > the others' knowledge level as you expect from others.

> >

> > You may consider your views as supported by Sage Parasara. But,

so

> > long as the controversy exists and people are there in both the

> > camps, to the public it is still your opinion. Such controversies

> do

> > exist in astrology. Why only this topic? There are several topics

> > that have controversial views; that is because most astrologers

> are

> > dependent on results-oriented approach. Hence you cannot still

> claim

> > what you are trying to claim today. Why do you have difficulty to

> > use the words " IN MY OPINION, " or " AS MY KNOWLEDGE SUGGEST, " ? No

> > one will object you when you give respect to others' knowledge.

> > Rather your knowledge enhances or brightens, and you will win

more

> > listeners to your opinion.

> >

> > I will give an example. The other controversy is the ayanamsa.

> Those

> > who use Chitrapaksha ayanamsa, use it since they get results from

> > using the same. Those who use other ayanamsas like Raman's and

> KP's

> > can use them if it works for them. You can not dictate what

people

> > should use it.

> >

> > As Sri Bharat suggested, nowhere in BPHS or any other classic we

> are

> > told to use computers and Internet media to propagate. Show me a

> > single shloka that supports use of computers and Internet for

> > Jyothish. In fact, in his articles Sri KN Rao says, if we do

> manual

> > computations on astrological charts, we actually know how the

> > planets are interacting with each other even at D-charts level

> also.

> >

> > Since you are a true believer of classical approach using

Shlokas,

> I

> > DO NOT EXPECT YOU TO USE INTERNET AND COMPUTERS FOR THE CAUSE OF

> > ASTROLOGY. Of course, I have no right to tell you to use or not

> use

> > something. Using your own approach this is what I have to say,

> since

> > there is no classical text that supports (unless you or your

> > supporters invent one).

> >

> > The gist of my message is, say whatever you want to say, but as

> your

> > opinion only. Do not undermine the knowledge of others.

> >

> > Best regards,

> > Satya S Kolachina

> >

> > @ <%40>

> , " vijayadas_pradeep "

> > <vijayadas_pradeep@> wrote:

> > >

> > > Dear Satya ji

> > >

> > > I have also mentioned numerous times that,if Raoji feels it is

> > > giving him results ,i cannot object.Even if Raoji does not use

> > these

> > > extra info he would get the results is my PERSONAL opinion.

> > >

> > > Now the question is about fundamentals.Whether Raoji has

> > understood

> > > or not is beyond my abilities.

> > >

> > > I go by Tarka and Pramana.If anybody wants to clarify they can

> > take

> > > the relevant shloka.If any body can translate the shloka for

> > aspects

> > > in a different way let them do it.Pls do not say the shloka

> that

> > > defines aspect is not clear.

> > >

> > > If you have different translation pls provide.I am not prepared

> to

> > > debate on your personal views or ''it works for

> > me /him ''etc.Tarka

> > > and Pramana like the way -Chandrashekar ji does -i am

there.Else

> > why

> > > do we debate?

> > >

> > > Let us be cool.The debate is only for those want to take a

> relook

> > at

> > > basics.I cannot understand the insecure feeling.Why are we

shaky

> > > here.

> > >

> > > Regds

> > > Pradeep

> > >

> > > @ <%40>

> , " Satya Sai Kolachina "

> > > <skolachi@> wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Dear Sri Pradeep,

> > > >

> > > > I raise a strong objection here: You twisted the statement

> > avoided

> > > > every other point I discussed here. This is not appropriate.

> > > >

> > > > Those astrologers of prior geneations, who used bhavas,

> drishtis

> > > and

> > > > amshas are not Internet astrolgoers. They never used

> computers.

> > In

> > > > fact, Sri K N Rao terms those astrologers who depend 100% on

> > > > computers as compudiots, in one of his articles. Internet did

> > not

> > > > even exist in those days.

> > > >

> > > > PLEASE DO NOT TALK ABOUT BASICS ON INTERNET. THIS IS MY

> EARNEST

> > > AND

> > > > HUMBLE WAY OF REQUESTING YOU TO HONOR OTHER ASTROLOGERS AND

> > THEIR

> > > > APPROACH TO ASTROLOGY.

> > > >

> > > > TIME AN AGAIN YOU ARE DOING THIS. EVERY ASTROLOGER HAS BASIC

> > > > KNOWLEDGE HERE. IT IS THE WAY THE BASICS ARE INTEREPRETED TO

> THE

> > > > SITUATION AND MAKING BRILLIANT PREDICTIONS.

> > > > TO PROPAGATE YOUR THEORY, PUBLISH BOOKS AND SEE HOW IT GETS

TO

> > THE

> > > > PUBLIC.

> > > >

> > > > WHEN YOU HAVE OPEN SAID TO SRI TARUN THAT YOU ARE NOT

> COMPETENT

> > > > ENOUGH IN SANSKRIT, YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO CLAIM THAT YOUR

> > > > INTERPRETATION IS THE CORRECT INTERPRETATION.

> > > >

> > > > First read all the artiles that Sri KN Rao published and come

> > back

> > > to

> > > > me whether he used aspects in D charts or not. He is not a

> > person

> > > to

> > > > say something to the public and do something else in his real

> > > > practice. His artilces speak for him.

> > > >

> > > > He used mixed concetps to arrive at conclusions. Whatever

> > concept

> > > > works in reality that is what he picked.

> > > >

> > > > Regards,

> > > > Satya S Kolachina

> > > >

> > > > @ <%40>

> , " vijayadas_pradeep "

> > > > <vijayadas_pradeep@> wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > > Dear Satya ji

> > > > >

> > > > > I totally agree with your view.Information technology and

> > > internet

> > > > > Jyotishis have made new rules and laws.For the same reason

i

> > > went

> > > > > back ,800 years to quote Dashadhyayi etc.

> > > > >

> > > > > Hope all members would go back to classics as you have

> rightly

> > > > > mentioned.

> > > > >

> > > > > Regds

> > > > > Pradeep

> > > > >

> > > > > @ <%40>

> , " Satya Sai Kolachina "

> > > > > <skolachi@> wrote:

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Dear Sri Bharat,

> > > > > >

> > > > > > I appreciate your asking openly about the level of

> Sanskrit

> > > > > knowledge

> > > > > > of these Internet astrologers. THis question prompted me

> > many

> > > > > times

> > > > > > and just to play low, I did not bring this point.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > In one of his messages to Sri Tarun, Sri Pradeep says

that

> > he

> > > is

> > > > > not

> > > > > > enough knowledged in Sanskrit, and on the other hand he

is

> > > 100%

> > > > > sure

> > > > > > of his translation of Sanskrit language. Sanskrit is a

> > cryptic

> > > > > > language where a suthra can reveal secrets the more and

> more

> > > you

> > > > > try

> > > > > > to understand.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > In several occassions sri KN Rao mentioned the same thing

> in

> > > his

> > > > > > articles; A sutra is something like the more and more you

> > > unwind

> > > > > it,

> > > > > > the more and more it reveals about its inner meanings.

One

> > has

> > > to

> > > > > > have real OPEN mind to do that unwinding, and of course a

> > very

> > > > > good

> > > > > > level of sanskrit knowledge one needs.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > It is highly inappropriate on the part of these Internet

> > > > > astrologers

> > > > > > to blame those other astrologers not discussing in favor

> of

> > > their

> > > > > > theory, as not following basics in astrology. First of

all

> > > they

> > > > > > should have strong (not basic) knowledge of Sanskrit.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > What authority they have in their name to talk about

> > > astrologers

> > > > > of

> > > > > > the prior generations, who have completely sacrificed

> their

> > > lives

> > > > > to

> > > > > > the cause of astrology? Almost every astrologer in the

> prior

> > > > > > generations used aspects and bhavas in Varga charts.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > I do not question this way if these Internet astrologers

> say

> > > > > that " IT

> > > > > > is their interpretation of the shlokas " . No. They are not

> > > saying

> > > > > > that. They are talking authoritatively that it is the

> right

> > > way

> > > > of

> > > > > > interpretation. The clear contradiction is seen here.

Once

> > > they

> > > > > say

> > > > > > they are not competent enough in Sanskrit (when

questioned

> > by

> > > Sri

> > > > > > Tarun) and on the other side, they say that their

> > > interpretatino

> > > > > is

> > > > > > final and authoritative.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > When we question like this, they selectively answer our

> > > > questions,

> > > > > > and where they have no answers they skip and change the

> > topic.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > It is highly inappropriate on the part of these Internet

> > > > > astrologers

> > > > > > to enforce their opinions on the astrologer community,

and

> > > those

> > > > > who

> > > > > > do not accept their theory - telling them to go back to

> > basics.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > As you rightly said, instead of typing nearly 200 emails

> to

> > > say

> > > > > the

> > > > > > same thing (which is nothing but enforcing their opinion

> on

> > > the

> > > > > > public forums) again and again, they can very well assist

> > the

> > > > > people

> > > > > > with their own theory and if there is value in the

theory,

> > it

> > > > > > automatically comes and gets accepted. No need of so much

> > > > > repetition.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Best regards,

> > > > > > Satya Sai Kolachina

> > > > > >

> > > > > > @ <%

40>

> , " Bharat - Hindu

> > > Astrology "

> > > > > > <astrologyhindu@> wrote:

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Namaskaar Sri Satish

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > If something is your question, you should ask the

> > concerned

> > > > > > astrologer. If

> > > > > > > Sri K N Rao takes Karakamsha too the Rashi and if you

do

> > not

> > > > > accept

> > > > > > it, it

> > > > > > > is for you to ask. You cannot ask members here to

become

> > > your

> > > > > > personal

> > > > > > > " messengers " .

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > When Karakamsha is taken in Navamsha, is it not taken

as

> a

> > > > > separate

> > > > > > chart?

> > > > > > > If it is, then, the argument that no other chart other

> > than

> > > > > Rashi

> > > > > > exists, is

> > > > > > > totally false. If not, then Sri K N Rao is right in

> taking

> > > > > > Karakamsha in

> > > > > > > Rashi.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > However, are you sure of all books that there are in

> > Jyotish

> > > > are

> > > > > > available

> > > > > > > with you? Are you sure they are undiluted texts from

> when

> > > they

> > > > > were

> > > > > > written?

> > > > > > > Are you sure that you know Sanskrit to the level of Sri

> > Adi

> > > > > Sankara

> > > > > > to be

> > > > > > > able to confirm that one translation is right and not

> the

> > > > other.

> > > > > > Coupled

> > > > > > > with misrepresentation of facts and misquotes galore by

> a

> > > > member

> > > > > > just amazes

> > > > > > > me.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Almost 20 days back, a member was asked to discuss

> charts.

> > > He

> > > > > has

> > > > > > the time

> > > > > > > to write close to 200 emails, but not the time to read

> ONE

> > > > > single

> > > > > > chart. Yes

> > > > > > > it amazes me how with 99% of ignorance one can pretend

> to

> > be

> > > > 100%

> > > > > > > knowledgeable.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > And who gives the right to one person to decide that

Sri

> > > Iyer's

> > > > > > method were

> > > > > > > non-vedic?

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Thanks and Regards

> > > > > > > Bharat

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > On 7/25/07, SPK <aquaris_rising@> wrote:

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Hi,

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > The debate may be endless but certainly not pointless.

> > > > > > > > Atleast not for me. Please read how the same shloka

> > > > > > > > can be interpreted with taking aspects in rashi chart.

> > > > > > > > People have interpreted it to suit their own already

> > > > > > > > formed ideas. I had raisded questions about why KNRao

> > > > > > > > transfers karakamsha to rashi chart ? Has anyone asked

> > > > > > > > him why ? The answer could be he has researched 1000

> > > > > > > > horoscopes. But has anyone asked if there is any

> > > > > > > > classical reference to why karakamsha has to be taken

> > > > > > > > to rashi ? Has anyone asked him that question ? I ask

> > > > > > > > the guys who have contact with him to ask this

> > > > > > > > question.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Satish

> > > > > > > > --- Satya Sai Kolachina <skolachi@ <skolachi%

> > > 40hotmail.com>>

> > > > > > > > wrote:

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Dear Sri Chandrasekhar ji,

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > I am trying to keep myself from this endless and

> > > > > > > > > pointless debate

> > > > > > > > > for a long time; but I could not resist myself from

> > > > > > > > > appreciating you

> > > > > > > > > bringing out this most valuable shloka and

> > > > > > > > > interpretation on this

> > > > > > > > > subject.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > This is the ultimate answer to those who do not

> > > > > > > > > consider aspects in

> > > > > > > > > Varga charts or D-Charts. Clearly Sage Parasara

> > > > > > > > > indicates here, his

> > > > > > > > > support on aspects in varga charts and in fact, all

> > > > > > > > > your & our

> > > > > > > > > earlier arguments in this debate get strengthened by

> > > > > > > > > this single

> > > > > > > > > shloka you provided.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Of course; those who have a fixed mindset (even

> > > > > > > > > though they keep

> > > > > > > > > saying open mind, in fact, they have fixed mindset)

> > > > > > > > > can always twist

> > > > > > > > > the interpretation to their convenience and try to

> > > > > > > > > MAKE a FIT of the

> > > > > > > > > shloka for their views. Such interpretation, however

> > > > > > > > > will not stand

> > > > > > > > > your opinion posted in this mail.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > This in fact brings out your experience and

> > > > > > > > > understanding level of

> > > > > > > > > the subject.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Best regards,

> > > > > > > > > Satya S Kolachina

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > @ <%

40>

> <%

> > > > > > 40>,

> > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar

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

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Dear Krishna,

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > The reason for aspects being allowed within

> > > > > > > > > D-charts may have to

> > > > > > > > > do with

> > > > > > > > > > the " Grahasphutadrishtikathanaadhyaaya " where

> > > > > > > > > evaluation of

> > > > > > > > > different

> > > > > > > > > > aspects of grahas are given and they range from 30

> > > > > > > > > degrees onwards

> > > > > > > > > in

> > > > > > > > > > increments of 0.30 degrees each till 299.30 as per

> > > > > > > > > table given by

> > > > > > > > > Late

> > > > > > > > > > R. Santanam. There is no repetition of amshas

> > > > > > > > > attributed to one

> > > > > > > > > rasi

> > > > > > > > > > within a rasi in the first harmonic chart class

> > > > > > > > > and therefore

> > > > > > > > > these

> > > > > > > > > > drishtis become applicable. In higher harmonics

> > > > > > > > > these may not be

> > > > > > > > > > applicable as rasi equivalent Varga will repeat,

> > > > > > > > > within 30 degrees

> > > > > > > > > and

> > > > > > > > > > that is why I personally would look at rasi

> > > > > > > > > drishti there.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Of course the above is my personal opinion on the

> > > > > > > > > logic behind the

> > > > > > > > > > aspects, within D-Charts, and the way they may be

> > > > > > > > > considered and

> > > > > > > > > it is

> > > > > > > > > > up to the learned to decide whether this view is

> > > > > > > > > right or not.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Krishnamurthy Seetharama wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji,

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for this mail and the translation of the

> > > > > > > > > Shloka in BPHS.

> > > > > > > > > > > I guess it has been conclusively proven that the

> > > > > > > > > aspects are

> > > > > > > > > > > allowed in the six divisional charts. I am not

> > > > > > > > > sure if everyone

> > > > > > > > > > > gets convinced or not, I am relieved for sure.

> > > > > > > > > And, I am happy

> > > > > > > > > > > that I am in the right path.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > However, the question remains that what is the

> > > > > > > > > principle behind

> > > > > > > > > > > allowing aspects in the divisional charts, even

> > > > > > > > > if they are a

> > > > > > > > > > > restricted set.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > I guess the ancient authors have not explained

> > > > > > > > > the principle

> > > > > > > > > > > behind the same. However, I would be very glad

> > > > > > > > > if you could

> > > > > > > > > > > share your thoughts on this.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Regards,

> > > > > > > > > > > Krishna

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > --- Chandrashekhar <chandrashekhar46@

> > > > > > > > > > > <chandrashekhar46%40.co.uk>> wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > >

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

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

> > > > > > > > > > > > I do not know what you are trying to prove

> > > > > > > > > here. However, the

> > > > > > > > > > > > translation is pretty straight forward and is:

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

> > > > > > > > > > > > " O, Learned brahmin, if the six divisions of

> > > > > > > > > the ascendant are

> > > > > > > > > > > > occupied

> > > > > > > > > > > > or aspected by the same graha, a raj yoga is

> > > > > > > > > formed, without

> > > > > > > > > > > > doubt. If

> > > > > > > > > > > > the aspect is full the results are full, if

> > > > > > > > > half, so are the

> > > > > > > > > > > > results

> > > > > > > > > > > > half and if 1/4th the yoga fructifies at 1/4th

> > > > > > > > > strength. "

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

> > > > > > > > > > > > This indicates that Parashara is talking about

> > > > > > > > > graha drishti

> > > > > > > > > > > > here. No

> > > > > > > > > > > > doubt about that. rasi drishti are full

> > > > > > > > > drishtis. This is

> > > > > > > > > > > > apparently so

> > > > > > > > > > > > as one of the 6 Vargas is navamsha where graha

> > > > > > > > > drishti can be

> > > > > > > > > > > > seen. This

> > > > > > > > > > > > also means that Parashara is not himself

> > > > > > > > > accepting the 2 rasi

> > > > > > > > > > > > hora

> > > > > > > > > > > > (Chandra and Surya) system that is proposed by

> > > > > > > > > Varaha Mihira.

> > > > > > > > > > > > So if you

> > > > > > > > > > > > accept the shloka as it is then you have to

> > > > > > > > > forget the Hora

> > > > > > > > > > > > interpretation of Brihat jataka and

> > > > > > > > > Dashaadhyaayi. Is that

> > > > > > > > > > > > acceptable to

> > > > > > > > > > > > you?

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

> > > > > > > > > > > > If you read Santanam's comment on it the fact

> > > > > > > > > that aspects in

> > > > > > > > > > > > divisional

> > > > > > > > > > > > charts are given in that shloka, is accepted

> > > > > > > > > by him, though he

> > > > > > > > > > > > expresses

> > > > > > > > > > > > that he is unable to fully conceive the logic

> > > > > > > > > of these

> > > > > > > > > > > > aspects.

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

> > > > > > > > > > > > So do I, now, presume that you are accepting

> > > > > > > > > aspects in

> > > > > > > > > > > > D-Charts, now

> > > > > > > > > > > > that you have quoted the shloka and the

> > > > > > > > > supremacy of BPHS over

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

> > > > > > > > > > > > Dashaadhyaayi?

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

> > > > > > > > > > > > Let me make it clear that I personally do not

> > > > > > > > > treat one

> > > > > > > > > > > > classic superior

> > > > > > > > > > > > or inferior to other, but this is what appears

> > > > > > > > > to be Pradeep's

> > > > > > > > > > > > view as

> > > > > > > > > > > > he is quoting the shloka in support of his

> > > > > > > > > argument.

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

> > > > > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

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

> > > > > > > > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

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

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

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

> > > > > > > > > > > > > The shloka numbers as requested are -

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

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Chapter - 39,Adha Rajayogadhyaya,shloka 13 &

> > > > > > > > > 14.I am also

> > > > > > > > > > > > providing

> > > > > > > > > > > > > the sanskrit link(pdf) so that you can read

> > > > > > > > > them without any

> > > > > > > > > > > > fonts.

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

> > > > > > > > > http://sanskritdocu

> <http://sanskritdocuments.org/all_pdf/par3140.pdf>

> ments.org/all_pdf/par3140.pdf

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > <http://sanskritdocu

> <http://sanskritdocuments.org/all_pdf/par3140.pdf>

> ments.org/all_pdf/par3140.pdf>

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > === message truncated ===

> > > > > > > >

> > ________

> > > > > > > > Fussy? Opinionated? Impossible to please? Perfect.

> Join

> > > > > 's

> > > > > > user

> > > > > > > > panel and lay it on us.

> > > > > > > >

> http://surveylink.

> <http://surveylink./gmrs/_panel_invite.asp?>

> /gmrs/_panel_invite.asp?

> > a=7

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

July 28, 2007

Dear Pradeep,

I did not qualify the planets, I seem to remember that in one of your

mails you talked about outer planets making it possible to look at all

the 6 varga lagnas.

Chandrashekhar.

vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

>

> Dear Chndrashekhar ji

>

> I had clealry said other case was given to Inderji ji.

> Now as you know sage did not say that outer planets do not qualify

> for this yoga.He said if any single planet -Let it be outer or inner.

>

> Respect

> Pradeep

>

> <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> <chandrashekhar46 wrote:

> >

> > Dear Pradeep,

> >

> > Unfortunately in the Queen's case, the time is 10.10 and there is

> also a

> > chart on the link that I gave you. So the surmise is wrong. The

> chart

> > does not prove what you set out to prove. By the way, in the

> Queen's

> > case even Jupiter aspects the Lagna by 5th aspect so the outer

> planet is

> > something that you were talking about here. Or did I miss some

> other

> > planet that occupies the 7th. I do not find any in her 7th bhava,

> wither

> > in Rasi or navamsha chart.

> >

> > Chandrashekhar.

> >

> > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > >

> > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > >

> > > It was not Queens case.Queens case however showed us lagnas

> > > shadvargas need not fall in Lagna always.If the time was 10.30

> then

> > > example is clear.

> > >

> > > Other is certain vargas falling in Lagna,a planet in Lagna and

> rest

> > > of the vargas falling in the 7th house.Thus outer planets are not

> > > needed.7th aspect is sufficient.

> > >

> > > Respect

> > > Pradeep

> > >

> <%40>

> > > <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > >

> > > > If you are referring to Queen Margrethe's chart. I am sure you

> > > must have

> > > > also sen my mail giving her correct time of birth and the link

> > > where it

> > > > is available. This shows that your contention is wrong as it is

> > > based on

> > > > wrong data.

> > > >

> > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > >

> > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar Ji

> > > > >

> > > > > I have given the case where not only outer planets but any

> > > planet can

> > > > > aspect and conjunct.Pls see the mail send to Inderjit ji.

> > > > >

> > > > > Respect

> > > > > Pradeep

> > > > >

> <%40>

> > > <%40>

> > > > > <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > > >

> > > > > > I am referring with respect to one planet aspecting all 6

> > > > > shadvargas in

> > > > > > rasi chart only as proposed by you. If the shad Vargas are

> > > taken to

> > > > > > different rasis, I do not see how any planets other than the

> > > outer

> > > > > > planets can aspect all Vargas in rasi chart. In some of the

> > > charts

> > > > > > considered for Shadvargas, even the outer planets may not be

> > > able

> > > > > to

> > > > > > aspect all six shadvargas if they lie in different rasis in

> > > rasi

> > > > > charts.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > It is not the question of my accepting an example, it is the

> > > > > question of

> > > > > > the learned finding out for themselves by as I said taking a

> > > bit of

> > > > > > trouble and then making up their mind. It is even better if

> > > they

> > > > > apply

> > > > > > the yogas to real life charts and decide whether they are

> > > borne out

> > > > > by

> > > > > > the known results. Contrived hypothetical chart to suit

> one's

> > > > > argument

> > > > > > is not a very good way to test the principles given by the

> > > sages.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > It seems you have not understood the concept.Lagnas

> > > shadvargas

> > > > > need

> > > > > > > not fall in lagna or should they be in a single rashi.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Some of them can be in one rashi and others in

> different.The

> > > > > > > aspecting planet should be the same.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > If it is still not clear,i will give you example.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > But the question is if an example is given ,will you

> accepet

> > > the

> > > > > > > point.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Respect

> > > > > > > Pradeep

> > > > > > >

> <%40>

> > > <%40>

> > > > > <%40>

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

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

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Dear Satish,

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > As the shadvargas are to fall in only one rasi, as being

> > > > > > > propounded,

> > > > > > > > then the shadvargas of Lagna should all be in Lagna is

> it

> > > not

> > > > > so?

> > > > > > > And

> > > > > > > > there is no mention of only the outer planets being

> > > qualified to

> > > > > > > aspect

> > > > > > > > in the shloka. Or is there any such mention that I have

> > > missed?

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > SPK wrote:

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Chadrashekharji,

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Why the lagna shadavarga has to fall in one rashi ?

> > > > > > > > > Say that the graha that is going to aspect the

> > > > > > > > > shadvargas is outer planet, it can occupy one rashi

> > > > > > > > > and aspect three others so that covers 4 rashis in the

> > > > > > > > > rashi chart. So if the lagna shadvarga are contained

> > > > > > > > > in those 4 rashis the same planet can aspect all the

> > > > > > > > > shadavargas in rashi chart alone.( many times navansha

> > > > > > > > > and dashamsha lagnas are same rashi). So if the

> > > > > > > > > shadavargas of lagna are only 4 rashis( quite

> > > > > > > > > possible) then a planet aspecting the 4 rashis in

> > > > > > > > > rashi chart is quite possible.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Thanks

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Satish

> > > > > > > > > --- Chandrashekhar <chandrashekhar46@

> > > > > > > > > <chandrashekhar46%40.co.uk>>

> > > > > > > > > wrote:

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Dear Satish,

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Why not take some value for the X,Y and Zs and find

> > > > > > > > > > out if all the six

> > > > > > > > > > Vargas that the graha occupies can fall in one rasi

> > > > > > > > > > and be aspected by

> > > > > > > > > > the same graha in one rasi, if the argument that

> > > > > > > > > > aspects should not be

> > > > > > > > > > seen in Vargas is to be accepted. I have not done

> > > > > > > > > > that exercise myself

> > > > > > > > > > as I would like to see those desirous of knowing

> > > > > > > > > > what sages meant to

> > > > > > > > > > find out for themselves.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > SPK wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Chadrashekharji,

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > The way this can be interpreted as follows.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Take any rashi chart and D-1 lagna

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Say navansha lagna is X,

> > > > > > > > > > > dwadashamsha lagna rashi Y

> > > > > > > > > > > Dreshkona lagna rashi Z, etc, etc.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Now lets say a planet posited in the rashi

> > > > > > > > > > chart(D-1)

> > > > > > > > > > > resides in or aspects rashi X, rashi Y, rashi Z,

> > > > > > > > > > etc,

> > > > > > > > > > > etc. then that will fulfill the condition of the

> > > > > > > > > > > shloka in rashi chart with aspects taken in rashi

> > > > > > > > > > > chart. Why is that not possible ?

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Thanks

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Satish

> > > > > > > > > > > --- Chandrashekhar <chandrashekhar46@

> > > > > > > > > <chandrashekhar46%40.co.uk>

> > > > > > > > > > > <chandrashekhar46%40.co.uk>>

> > > > > > > > > > > wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Satish,

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

> > > > > > > > > > > > I have given the translation of the shloka. It

> > > > > > > > > > is up

> > > > > > > > > > > > to the learned to

> > > > > > > > > > > > find out whether it is indeed possible for a

> > > > > > > > > > graha

> > > > > > > > > > > > to occupy a

> > > > > > > > > > > > particular amsha and occupy all the six Vargas

> > > > > > > > > > > > equivalent to the rashi

> > > > > > > > > > > > occupied, in one and the same rashi and that too

> > > > > > > > > > for

> > > > > > > > > > > > all rasis. Only

> > > > > > > > > > > > then can one say that the reference is not to

> > > > > > > > > > > > drishti within a D-Chart.

> > > > > > > > > > > > I doubt that can be the case. However as I said

> > > > > > > > > > it

> > > > > > > > > > > > is for the learned

> > > > > > > > > > > > for put in a bit of effort and find out for

> > > > > > > > > > > > themselves.

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

> > > > > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

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

> > > > > > > > > > > > SPK wrote:

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

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi,

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

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks Chandrashekharji for the traslation of

> > > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > shloka.

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

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Again I am not sure how can one conclusively

> > > > > > > > > > say

> > > > > > > > > > > > sage

> > > > > > > > > > > > > is sactioning aspects in divisions ? This has

> > > > > > > > > > been

> > > > > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > debate for years. Six divisions of lagna. Can

> > > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > divisions of lagna exist in rashi chart ?

> > > > > > > > > > Ofcourse

> > > > > > > > > > > > > they can. Is there anything in the shloka that

> > > > > > > > > > > > > suggests that the aspect has to be seen in

> > > > > > > > > > > > divisions.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Can the same graha aspect or occupy the six

> > > > > > > > > > > > divisions

> > > > > > > > > > > > > of lagna in the rashi chart ?

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

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks

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

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Satish

> > > > > > > > > > > > > --- Krishnamurthy Seetharama

> > > > > > > > > > > > <krishna_1998@ <krishna_1998%40>

> > > > > > > > > > <krishna_1998%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > <krishna_1998%40>>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:

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

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji,

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

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for this mail and the translation of

> > > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Shloka in BPHS.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > I guess it has been conclusively proven that

> > > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > aspects are

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > allowed in the six divisional charts. I am

> > > > > > > > > > not

> > > > > > > > > > > > sure

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > if everyone

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > gets convinced or not, I am relieved for

> > > > > > > > > > sure.

> > > > > > > > > > > > And,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > I am happy

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > that I am in the right path.

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

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > However, the question remains that what is

> > > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > principle behind

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > allowing aspects in the divisional charts,

> > > > > > > > > > even

> > > > > > > > > > > > if

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > they are a

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > restricted set.

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

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > I guess the ancient authors have not

> > > > > > > > > > explained

> > > > > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > principle

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > behind the same. However, I would be very

> > > > > > > > > > glad

> > > > > > > > > > > > if

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > you could

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > share your thoughts on this.

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

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Regards,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Krishna

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

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- Chandrashekhar

> > > > > > > > > > <chandrashekhar46@ <chandrashekhar46%

> > > 40.co.uk>

> > > > > > > > > > > <chandrashekhar46%40.co.uk>

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

> > > > > > > > > > > > > <chandrashekhar46%40.co.uk>>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:

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

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

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

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I do not know what you are trying to prove

> > > > > > > > > > > > here.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > However, the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > translation is pretty straight forward and

> > > > > > > > > > is:

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

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > " O, Learned brahmin, if the six divisions

> > > > > > > > > > of

> > > > > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > ascendant are

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > occupied

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > or aspected by the same graha, a raj yoga

> > > > > > > > > > is

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > formed, without

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > doubt. If

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the aspect is full the results are full,

> > > > > > > > > > if

> > > > > > > > > > > > half,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > so are the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > results

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > half and if 1/4th the yoga fructifies at

> > > > > > > > > > 1/4th

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > strength. "

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

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This indicates that Parashara is talking

> > > > > > > > > > about

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > graha drishti

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > here. No

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > doubt about that. rasi drishti are full

> > > > > > > > > > > > drishtis.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > This is

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > apparently so

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as one of the 6 Vargas is navamsha where

> > > > > > > > > > graha

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > drishti can be

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > seen. This

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > also means that Parashara is not himself

> > > > > > > > > > > > accepting

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the 2 rasi

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > hora

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (Chandra and Surya) system that is

> > > > > > > > > > proposed by

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Varaha Mihira.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So if you

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > accept the shloka as it is then you have

> > > > > > > > > > to

> > > > > > > > > > > > forget

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the Hora

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > interpretation of Brihat jataka and

> > > > > > > > > > > > Dashaadhyaayi.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Is that

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > acceptable to

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > === message truncated ===

> > > > > > > > >

> > > ________

> > > > > > > > > oneSearch: Finally, mobile search

> > > > > > > > > that gives answers, not web links.

> > > > > > > > > http://mobile./mobileweb/onesearch?

> <http://mobile./mobileweb/onesearch?>

> refer=1ONXIC

> > > <http://mobile./mobileweb/onesearch?refer=1ONXIC

> <http://mobile./mobileweb/onesearch?refer=1ONXIC>>

> > > > > <http://mobile./mobileweb/onesearch?refer=1ONXIC

> <http://mobile./mobileweb/onesearch?refer=1ONXIC>

> > > <http://mobile./mobileweb/onesearch?refer=1ONXIC

> <http://mobile./mobileweb/onesearch?refer=1ONXIC>>>

> > > > > > > <http://mobile./mobileweb/onesearch?refer=1ONXIC

> <http://mobile./mobileweb/onesearch?refer=1ONXIC>

> > > <http://mobile./mobileweb/onesearch?refer=1ONXIC

> <http://mobile./mobileweb/onesearch?refer=1ONXIC>>

> > > > > <http://mobile./mobileweb/onesearch?refer=1ONXIC

> <http://mobile./mobileweb/onesearch?refer=1ONXIC>

> > > <http://mobile./mobileweb/onesearch?refer=1ONXIC

> <http://mobile./mobileweb/onesearch?refer=1ONXIC>>>>

> > > > > > > > > <http://mobile./mobileweb/onesearch?

> <http://mobile./mobileweb/onesearch?>

> > > <http://mobile./mobileweb/onesearch?

> <http://mobile./mobileweb/onesearch?>>

> > > refer=1ONXIC

> > > > > <http://mobile./mobileweb/onesearch?refer=1ONXIC

> <http://mobile./mobileweb/onesearch?refer=1ONXIC>

> > > <http://mobile./mobileweb/onesearch?refer=1ONXIC

> <http://mobile./mobileweb/onesearch?refer=1ONXIC>>>

> > > > > > > <http://mobile./mobileweb/onesearch?refer=1ONXIC

> <http://mobile./mobileweb/onesearch?refer=1ONXIC>

> > > <http://mobile./mobileweb/onesearch?refer=1ONXIC

> <http://mobile./mobileweb/onesearch?refer=1ONXIC>>

> > > > > <http://mobile./mobileweb/onesearch?refer=1ONXIC

> <http://mobile./mobileweb/onesearch?refer=1ONXIC>

> > > <http://mobile./mobileweb/onesearch?refer=1ONXIC

> <http://mobile./mobileweb/onesearch?refer=1ONXIC>>>>>

> > > > > > > > >

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

> ---

> > > -

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

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Version: 7.5.476 / Virus Database: 269.10.17/915 -

> > > Release

> > > > > Date:

> > > > > > > 7/24/2007 1:50 PM

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

July 29, 2007

Dear Chandrashekhar ji,

Thanks for your confirmation. I need to study more in this area

to understand things better.

Regards,

Krishna

--- Chandrashekhar <chandrashekhar46 wrote:

> Dear Krishna,

>

> I would think so. Actually, I think that the graha drishtis in

> first

> harmonic charts arise out of treating multiples of the arc of

> the

> particular division as drishtis and yutis. Let me however make

> it clear

> that I have not looked at individual drishti in that manner as

> I look at

> drishtis in a different manner as I have clarified in my many

> mails, on

> the subject. The reason I distinguish between the graha and

> rasi drishti

> has to do with the dynamic and static mature of the two

> drishtis. But

> that is a subject which will take too much of the space and

> could raise

> hackles of many that may not agree with my views.

>

> Chandrashekhar.

>

> Krishnamurthy Seetharama wrote:

> >

> > Dear Chandrashekar ji,

> >

> > Thanks for sharing your views.

> >

> > Let me ask a related question for better understanding of

> what

> > you have said. Let us assume that the grahadrishties of

> planets

> > in Rasi are looked at using Grahasphutadrishti, then can we

> say

> > that we would have covered all the graha drishties in the

> first

> > harmonic varga charts? Have you tried out exercise? If so,

> > please share your experience.

> >

> > Regards,

> > Krishna

> >

> > --- Chandrashekhar <chandrashekhar46

> > <chandrashekhar46%40.co.uk>> wrote:

> >

> > > Dear Krishna,

> > >

> > > The reason for aspects being allowed within D-charts may

> have

> > > to do with

> > > the " Grahasphutadrishtikathanaadhyaaya " where evaluation

> of

> > > different

> > > aspects of grahas are given and they range from 30 degrees

> > > onwards in

> > > increments of 0.30 degrees each till 299.30 as per table

> given

> > > by Late

> > > R. Santanam. There is no repetition of amshas attributed

> to

> > > one rasi

> > > within a rasi in the first harmonic chart class and

> therefore

> > > these

> > > drishtis become applicable. In higher harmonics these may

> not

> > > be

> > > applicable as rasi equivalent Varga will repeat, within 30

> > > degrees and

> > > that is why I personally would look at rasi drishti there.

> > >

> > > Of course the above is my personal opinion on the logic

> behind

> > > the

> > > aspects, within D-Charts, and the way they may be

> considered

> > > and it is

> > > up to the learned to decide whether this view is right or

> not.

> > >

> > > Chandrashekhar.

> > >

> > > Krishnamurthy Seetharama wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji,

> > > >

> > > > Thanks for this mail and the translation of the Shloka

> in

> > > BPHS.

> > > > I guess it has been conclusively proven that the aspects

> are

> > > > allowed in the six divisional charts. I am not sure if

> > > everyone

> > > > gets convinced or not, I am relieved for sure. And, I am

> > > happy

> > > > that I am in the right path.

> > > >

> > > > However, the question remains that what is the principle

> > > behind

> > > > allowing aspects in the divisional charts, even if they

> are

> > > a

> > > > restricted set.

> > > >

> > > > I guess the ancient authors have not explained the

> principle

> > > > behind the same. However, I would be very glad if you

> could

> > > > share your thoughts on this.

> > > >

> > > > Regards,

> > > > Krishna

> > > >

> > > > --- Chandrashekhar <chandrashekhar46

> > <chandrashekhar46%40.co.uk>

> > > > <chandrashekhar46%40.co.uk>> wrote:

> > > >

> > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > >

> > > > > I do not know what you are trying to prove here.

> However,

> > > the

> > > > > translation is pretty straight forward and is:

> > > > >

> > > > > " O, Learned brahmin, if the six divisions of the

> ascendant

> > > are

> > > > > occupied

> > > > > or aspected by the same graha, a raj yoga is formed,

> > > without

> > > > > doubt. If

> > > > > the aspect is full the results are full, if half, so

> are

> > > the

> > > > > results

> > > > > half and if 1/4th the yoga fructifies at 1/4th

> strength. "

> > > > >

> > > > > This indicates that Parashara is talking about graha

> > > drishti

> > > > > here. No

> > > > > doubt about that. rasi drishti are full drishtis. This

> is

> > > > > apparently so

> > > > > as one of the 6 Vargas is navamsha where graha drishti

> can

> > > be

> > > > > seen. This

> > > > > also means that Parashara is not himself accepting the

> 2

> > > rasi

> > > > > hora

> > > > > (Chandra and Surya) system that is proposed by Varaha

> > > Mihira.

> > > > > So if you

> > > > > accept the shloka as it is then you have to forget the

> > > Hora

> > > > > interpretation of Brihat jataka and Dashaadhyaayi. Is

> that

> > > > > acceptable to

> > > > > you?

> > > > >

> > > > > If you read Santanam's comment on it the fact that

> aspects

> > > in

> > > > > divisional

> > > > > charts are given in that shloka, is accepted by him,

> > > though he

> > > > > expresses

> > > > > that he is unable to fully conceive the logic of these

> > > > > aspects.

> > > > >

> > > > > So do I, now, presume that you are accepting aspects

> in

> > > > > D-Charts, now

> > > > > that you have quoted the shloka and the supremacy of

> BPHS

> > > over

> > > > >

> > > > > Dashaadhyaayi?

> > > > >

> > > > > Let me make it clear that I personally do not treat

> one

> > > > > classic superior

> > > > > or inferior to other, but this is what appears to be

> > > Pradeep's

> > > > > view as

> > > > > he is quoting the shloka in support of his argument.

> > > > >

> > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > >

> > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > > >

> > > > > > The shloka numbers as requested are -

> > > > > >

>

=== message truncated ===

______________________________\

____

Luggage? GPS? Comic books?

Check out fitting gifts for grads at Search

http://search./search?fr=oni_on_mail & p=graduation+gifts & cs=bz

Sign In

Varge as Plural - Shloka number and Link-Lagna Shadvargake

Recommended Posts

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Join the conversation

Support the Ashram

Join WhatsApp Group

Top Downloads