Late Santhanam + BPHS + Mr.Bose - Kursija ji -Opposition etc

[Guest guest]

Dear Respected memebers

 

As some individuals with scientific bent of mind like Kursija ji

have raised concerns i am making one more mail ,before the paper to

make them understand the astronomical subtilities -

 

1)Late Santhanam - " Aspects are referred to in the divisional charts

here. I am unable to fully conceive the logic in aspects in

divisional charts for the SAGE HIMSELF REFERRED to the LONGITUDINAL

aspectual evaluations in an earlier chapter. Without commenting

further on this controversial aspect I leave it at that, accepting

my limitations to explain this fully. "

 

2)Mr.Bose -

''One has to remember that when a planet is in Thula(Libra) and

another one is in Mesha in Navamsha chart, they are there in those

respective rasis because those planets occupied (in the birth

chart) segments ruled by Venus and Mars, the lords of Thula and

Mesha respectively.''

 

 

''Such a relationship originates in the amsa lordship between

segments of a given rasi, it has got NOTHING TO DO WITH any ANGULAR

relationship between planets existing at the time of birth.

Therefore, there is no justification to consider that these planets

are in opposition in the same sense as they will be in rasi, if

they are similarly placed.''

 

 

''The starting point of the math for evaluation of drikbala function

is the longitude of planets. Is it not clear that the drikbala is

aspectual strength? If there is no longitudinal identity,and

consequently no angular relationship can be attributed between

planets in an amsa chart, does it not make aspect and aspectual

strength a foregone conclusion in amsa charts? ''

 

Regds

Pradeep

[Guest guest]

Dear Vijayadas Praqdeep,

I have clearly said that Astrology is based on

Astronomy and laws of mathematics. The movements of

planets is governed by Kepler's law and modified with

the observations of Nasa.Even the laws of Motions has

been modified. But we have not modifies our

astrological rules according to the available data. We

are not in a position to explain that why superior

planets have been granted three full aspects. We have

accepted with due respects what has been written in

our classics hundreds years ago, when our classic

clearly say that data should be modified after every

60 years or so due to precession of equinox. Every

thing in this universe is moving and is relative.

Nothing is absolute and determine, fixed. More over

our astrological books are in sanskrit and has been

translated by scholars who know sanskrit bur not

astrology. In sanskrit a single word has many

meanings. I have faced this difficulty while teaching

reduction in longevity due to Kuja in Ashtakvarga. So

we have to refer the experience of our early scholars

in astrrology Sh.Harihar Majumdar, Devikinand Singh,

Dr.B.V.Raman, Sh. Surya Narain,Smt Gayatri Devi,

Sh.K.N.Rao, Iyenger, Sanjay Rath, PVR Narsimha Rao,

Santhanam and host of others.Sh. K.N.Rao accepts

aspect in varga, Late sh. Santhanam does not advise to

accept. Similar is the position for the signs of Rahu

and Ketu. Similarly we are confused for so many things

in other fields of Astrrology. Accept that we are not

clear about the aspects of planets in varga. Time and

experience will clear it. But one thing is crystal

clear that Astrology is based on Astronomy.Any thing

against Astronomy's law is to be rejected.

Thanks.

 

--- vijayadas_pradeep <vijayadas_pradeep

wrote:

 

> Dear Respected memebers

>

> As some individuals with scientific bent of mind

> like Kursija ji

> have raised concerns i am making one more mail

> ,before the paper to

> make them understand the astronomical subtilities -

>

> 1)Late Santhanam - " Aspects are referred to in the

> divisional charts

> here. I am unable to fully conceive the logic in

> aspects in

> divisional charts for the SAGE HIMSELF REFERRED to

> the LONGITUDINAL

> aspectual evaluations in an earlier chapter. Without

> commenting

> further on this controversial aspect I leave it at

> that, accepting

> my limitations to explain this fully. "

>

> 2)Mr.Bose -

> ''One has to remember that when a planet is in

> Thula(Libra) and

> another one is in Mesha in Navamsha chart, they are

> there in those

> respective rasis because those planets occupied (in

> the birth

> chart) segments ruled by Venus and Mars, the lords

> of Thula and

> Mesha respectively.''

>

>

> ''Such a relationship originates in the amsa

> lordship between

> segments of a given rasi, it has got NOTHING TO DO

> WITH any ANGULAR

> relationship between planets existing at the time

> of birth.

> Therefore, there is no justification to consider

> that these planets

> are in opposition in the same sense as they will be

> in rasi, if

> they are similarly placed.''

>

>

> ''The starting point of the math for evaluation of

> drikbala function

> is the longitude of planets. Is it not clear that

> the drikbala is

> aspectual strength? If there is no longitudinal

> identity,and

> consequently no angular relationship can be

> attributed between

> planets in an amsa chart, does it not make aspect

> and aspectual

> strength a foregone conclusion in amsa charts? ''

>

> Regds

> Pradeep

 

[Guest guest]

Dear Shri Kursija

 

Yes ,a very balanced and good post.

I liked one point in the mail.Scholars who knows Sanskri but not

astrology(in depth).

No one could had told it better.During my course of discussions ,i id

mention in similar lines.Average Sanskrit Knowledge and High

astrological knowledge is the pre-condition.

As you have said if you give an astrological shloka to a samskrit

scholar with average astrological knowledge - It will be a tough time

for that gentleman.One should be able to pick the relevant sanskrit

meaning based on astrological context.Only learned ones from the

Gurukula Sampradaya can do this.

 

Let our collective efforts takes us towards Truth,no matter whose

views are those.

 

Regds

Pradeep

 

, " S.C. Kursija " <sckursija

wrote:

>

> Dear Vijayadas Praqdeep,

> I have clearly said that Astrology is based on

> Astronomy and laws of mathematics. The movements of

> planets is governed by Kepler's law and modified with

> the observations of Nasa.Even the laws of Motions has

> been modified. But we have not modifies our

> astrological rules according to the available data. We

> are not in a position to explain that why superior

> planets have been granted three full aspects. We have

> accepted with due respects what has been written in

> our classics hundreds years ago, when our classic

> clearly say that data should be modified after every

> 60 years or so due to precession of equinox. Every

> thing in this universe is moving and is relative.

> Nothing is absolute and determine, fixed. More over

> our astrological books are in sanskrit and has been

> translated by scholars who know sanskrit bur not

> astrology. In sanskrit a single word has many

> meanings. I have faced this difficulty while teaching

> reduction in longevity due to Kuja in Ashtakvarga. So

> we have to refer the experience of our early scholars

> in astrrology Sh.Harihar Majumdar, Devikinand Singh,

> Dr.B.V.Raman, Sh. Surya Narain,Smt Gayatri Devi,

> Sh.K.N.Rao, Iyenger, Sanjay Rath, PVR Narsimha Rao,

> Santhanam and host of others.Sh. K.N.Rao accepts

> aspect in varga, Late sh. Santhanam does not advise to

> accept. Similar is the position for the signs of Rahu

> and Ketu. Similarly we are confused for so many things

> in other fields of Astrrology. Accept that we are not

> clear about the aspects of planets in varga. Time and

> experience will clear it. But one thing is crystal

> clear that Astrology is based on Astronomy.Any thing

> against Astronomy's law is to be rejected.

> Thanks.

>

> --- vijayadas_pradeep <vijayadas_pradeep

> wrote:

>

> > Dear Respected memebers

> >

> > As some individuals with scientific bent of mind

> > like Kursija ji

> > have raised concerns i am making one more mail

> > ,before the paper to

> > make them understand the astronomical subtilities -

> >

> > 1)Late Santhanam - " Aspects are referred to in the

> > divisional charts

> > here. I am unable to fully conceive the logic in

> > aspects in

> > divisional charts for the SAGE HIMSELF REFERRED to

> > the LONGITUDINAL

> > aspectual evaluations in an earlier chapter. Without

> > commenting

> > further on this controversial aspect I leave it at

> > that, accepting

> > my limitations to explain this fully. "

> >

> > 2)Mr.Bose -

> > ''One has to remember that when a planet is in

> > Thula(Libra) and

> > another one is in Mesha in Navamsha chart, they are

> > there in those

> > respective rasis because those planets occupied (in

> > the birth

> > chart) segments ruled by Venus and Mars, the lords

> > of Thula and

> > Mesha respectively.''

> >

> >

> > ''Such a relationship originates in the amsa

> > lordship between

> > segments of a given rasi, it has got NOTHING TO DO

> > WITH any ANGULAR

> > relationship between planets existing at the time

> > of birth.

> > Therefore, there is no justification to consider

> > that these planets

> > are in opposition in the same sense as they will be

> > in rasi, if

> > they are similarly placed.''

> >

> >

> > ''The starting point of the math for evaluation of

> > drikbala function

> > is the longitude of planets. Is it not clear that

> > the drikbala is

> > aspectual strength? If there is no longitudinal

> > identity,and

> > consequently no angular relationship can be

> > attributed between

> > planets in an amsa chart, does it not make aspect

> > and aspectual

> > strength a foregone conclusion in amsa charts? ''

> >

> > Regds

> > Pradeep

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

[Guest guest]

Dear Kursijaji,

 

This was a good post coming from you.

My views-

 

Astrology is based on Astronomy, Yes, but

not astronomy of today.Astronomy of today declares

Pluto a Planet, and after few decades, undeclares

the same.

At the same time astronomy of today does give

us the statistical data of the Planets we

use in the form of daily motions,degrees,

aspects etc.which without their aid would

take us one month to prepare or study ,

any one chart manually.

 

Therefore we have to choose the factors

in consensus by the great scholars, and

leave others to individual discretion.

 

I have given few references of Shri Santhanam in

my previous mails taken after lot of hard work,in

searching for these, and also given the Book names

and Page nos. which clearly show that Shri Santhanamji,

was actually using aspects in Divisional Charts too.

But I am not going to start any argument,please.

 

And of course there are many issues yet,which have to

be settled and brought to proper understanding.

 

regards,

Bhaskar.

 

 

 

, " S.C. Kursija " <sckursija wrote:

>

> Dear Vijayadas Praqdeep,

> I have clearly said that Astrology is based on

> Astronomy and laws of mathematics. The movements of

> planets is governed by Kepler's law and modified with

> the observations of Nasa.Even the laws of Motions has

> been modified. But we have not modifies our

> astrological rules according to the available data. We

> are not in a position to explain that why superior

> planets have been granted three full aspects. We have

> accepted with due respects what has been written in

> our classics hundreds years ago, when our classic

> clearly say that data should be modified after every

> 60 years or so due to precession of equinox. Every

> thing in this universe is moving and is relative.

> Nothing is absolute and determine, fixed. More over

> our astrological books are in sanskrit and has been

> translated by scholars who know sanskrit bur not

> astrology. In sanskrit a single word has many

> meanings. I have faced this difficulty while teaching

> reduction in longevity due to Kuja in Ashtakvarga. So

> we have to refer the experience of our early scholars

> in astrrology Sh.Harihar Majumdar, Devikinand Singh,

> Dr.B.V.Raman, Sh. Surya Narain,Smt Gayatri Devi,

> Sh.K.N.Rao, Iyenger, Sanjay Rath, PVR Narsimha Rao,

> Santhanam and host of others.Sh. K.N.Rao accepts

> aspect in varga, Late sh. Santhanam does not advise to

> accept. Similar is the position for the signs of Rahu

> and Ketu. Similarly we are confused for so many things

> in other fields of Astrrology. Accept that we are not

> clear about the aspects of planets in varga. Time and

> experience will clear it. But one thing is crystal

> clear that Astrology is based on Astronomy.Any thing

> against Astronomy's law is to be rejected.

> Thanks.

>

> --- vijayadas_pradeep <vijayadas_pradeep

> wrote:

>

> > Dear Respected memebers

> >

> > As some individuals with scientific bent of mind

> > like Kursija ji

> > have raised concerns i am making one more mail

> > ,before the paper to

> > make them understand the astronomical subtilities -

> >

> > 1)Late Santhanam - " Aspects are referred to in the

> > divisional charts

> > here. I am unable to fully conceive the logic in

> > aspects in

> > divisional charts for the SAGE HIMSELF REFERRED to

> > the LONGITUDINAL

> > aspectual evaluations in an earlier chapter. Without

> > commenting

> > further on this controversial aspect I leave it at

> > that, accepting

> > my limitations to explain this fully. "

> >

> > 2)Mr.Bose -

> > ''One has to remember that when a planet is in

> > Thula(Libra) and

> > another one is in Mesha in Navamsha chart, they are

> > there in those

> > respective rasis because those planets occupied (in

> > the birth

> > chart) segments ruled by Venus and Mars, the lords

> > of Thula and

> > Mesha respectively.''

> >

> >

> > ''Such a relationship originates in the amsa

> > lordship between

> > segments of a given rasi, it has got NOTHING TO DO

> > WITH any ANGULAR

> > relationship between planets existing at the time

> > of birth.

> > Therefore, there is no justification to consider

> > that these planets

> > are in opposition in the same sense as they will be

> > in rasi, if

> > they are similarly placed.''

> >

> >

> > ''The starting point of the math for evaluation of

> > drikbala function

> > is the longitude of planets. Is it not clear that

> > the drikbala is

> > aspectual strength? If there is no longitudinal

> > identity,and

> > consequently no angular relationship can be

> > attributed between

> > planets in an amsa chart, does it not make aspect

> > and aspectual

> > strength a foregone conclusion in amsa charts? ''

> >

> > Regds

> > Pradeep

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >