Request to some of the members -Rahu/Ketu

[Guest guest]

Dear Satya ji

 

You are talking in the language of Yukthi Vaadis,who does not know

astrology but keep on critizing it.But you are not like that.You are

well aversed in astrology.You may not talk in that fashion.

 

1)Rahu & Ketu are astronomical points -Nodes of Moon -

Philosophically they are the intersection of Atma-Mana padha.

 

2)Sun and Moon -They are considered as ''Grahas'' by

Mahamunis.Planet is an English term.

 

Gola ,Ganita,Hora - Mahamunis did not devise anything for fun.There

is a strong basis.

 

Similarly the rules for aspect and their evaluations can be

objectively measured in a mathematical fashion.

 

Regds

Pradeep

 

 

, " Satya Sai Kolachina "

<skolachi wrote:

>

> Dear Sri Kursija,

>

> Astronomy doesn't define 9 planets as incarnations of Lord Vishnu.

> Astronomy doesn't define Rahu and Kethu as planets. Even Sun and

Moon

> are not planets astronomically.

> Astronomy doesn't define planets into different castes like

Brahmin,

> Khathriya, Vaishya and Sudra etc. THere are many things you cannot

> get from astronomy. Our seers gave Vedic astrology thousands of

years

> ago, whereas the science of astronomy developed much later.

>

> If you start talking in strict astronomical sense, Vedic/Hindu

> astrology doesn't fit in there. The closest approximation to

> astronomy is only the Western astrology; which some people follow.

> Let us not be hypocritical. If we follow Vedic astrology, let us

not

> feel bad to take the vedic astrology concepts as they are.

>

> Vedic astrology is more than science; it is divine science. You do

> not have to accept what I say. For that matter no one has to

accept

> what I say. But, when you try to equate something, do not do it

> selectively.

>

> There is a concept of divinity superimposed over the astronomical

> facts; some concepts seem to be apparently known to us; there are

> many concepts not known or lost in the past centuries.

>

> Regards,

>

> Satya S Kolachina

>

>

> , " S.C. Kursija " <sckursija@>

> wrote:

> >

> > Respected members of the forum,

> > I tried my best to keep away from this endless

> > discussion but not with out poin. It has got its own

> > merits. But the discussion is turning into criticism

> > and trying to prove that other is worng. This is not a

> > healthy way of discussion.

> > Up till now I have not seen any member Who discuss

> > the aspect. Why we have taken aspect in astrology? The

> > aspect refers to an angular distance

> > between two celestial bodies measured along the

> > ecliptic. So all terms used in astrology are based on

> > astronomy. If we take into consideration the

> > definition of aspect in astronomy, there will not be

> > any confusion whether we should use aspect in varga or

> > not. The varga are not configuration of the planets on

> > the bases of astronomy. We have created varga to look

> > deep into the different aspects of life. The rashi

> > chart is the map of the planets at the time of birth.

> > It the nature position of the planets. The varga are

> > the creation of astrologers not the nature or the

> > Universe.Though Astrology is based on astronomy and

> > mathematic, but not whimsical. It is a science.So

> > aspect should not be seen in vargas.If any how we find

> > out that one or two shlokas in one classic in favor of

> > use of aspects in varga, it does not prove that aspect

> > should be used in vergas.Why other classics are

> > silent. Does astronomy allows it? If astronomy does

> > not allows the same, we should reject the same

> > immediately. The astrology is based on astronomy. The

> > astronomy is not based on astrology. We have converted

> > astronomy into the astrology for the benefit of human

> > kind and universe to understand the future. Respect

> > the astronomy not any person who ever he may be.The

> > astrologers have developed the habit of giving

> > explanation when event has taken place and try to fit

> > the event in astrology, but does not improve himself

> > and astrology. I have repeatedly requested the indian

> > astronomers and mathematicians to modify and rectify

> > the data of the astrology according to the present

> > position of the planets and point of equinox so that

> > we may be able to predict earth quake,pattern of rain

> > and seasons, say mundane events.

> > I do not want to criticise any one. If my words have

> > hurt any body, I feel sorry for the same.

> > --- vijayadas_pradeep <vijayadas_pradeep@>

> > wrote:

> >

> > > Dear Prafulla ji

> > >

> > > This is really painful.You are really testing

> > > patience.How many times

> > > i have to tell you this.Should i bring the mail in

> > > which i have

> > > answered the same question to you.

> > >

> > > I clealry said,since he considered Varga charts -he

> > > could notexplain

> > > Lagna shadvargake shloka.

> > >

> > > Do you think others in this goup are fools.Do you

> > > think this tactic

> > > will work.It is there in the archives ,about what i

> > > have said.

> > >

> > > Regds

> > > Pradeep

> > >

> > > In , " Prafulla Gang "

> > > <jyotish@> wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Dear Pradeep ji

> > > >

> > > > Do you agree with Shri Santhanam's conviction of

> > > varga charts? I am

> > > > repeatedly questioning your misquote, as he even

> > > used aspects. You

> > > > should not refer himn selectively. You do agree

> > > with his 10th line

> > > of

> > > > the poem (i.e. aspects) , So I presume - you agree

> > > with first 9

> > > lines

> > > > also (i.e. varga chakra, the yogas there, houses

> > > there and so son).

> > > >

> > > > regards / Prafulla

> > > >

> > > > ,

> > > " vijayadas_pradeep "

> > > > <vijayadas_pradeep@> wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > > Dear Respected members

> > > > >

> > > > > Grahasphuta Drishti Kadhanadhyaya in BPHS talks

> > > about the drishti

> > > > > other than Rashi drishti mentioned in earlier

> > > chapter.

> > > > >

> > > > > Here sage says,apart from the common or

> > > ordinary(Samanya) way of

> > > > > seeing raha drshti we can evaluate graha drishti

> > > based on

> > > longitude.

> > > > >

> > > > > Then sage describes how the strength of Graha

> > > drishtis can be

> > > > > evaluated.As Jupiter ,Mars and Saturn has

> > > special aspects there

> > > are

> > > > > special rules mentioned to evaluate their

> > > strength as well.

> > > > >

> > > > > So being the case,Shri Santhanam or any other

> > > astrologer ,translator

> > > > > cannot have a different view.

> > > > >

> > > > > Now as varga placements are purely based on

> > > varga lordship within

> > > a

> > > > > Rashi,the longitudinal identity and Rasmi has no

> > > role to play.

> > > > >

> > > > > This is enough for any studen to understand what

> > > is what.Moreover

> > > > > shri Santhanam has categorically stated (for

> > > those who are still

> > > not

> > > > > clear) that graha drishti is beyond my

> > > understanding in Varga

> > > Chakras.

> > > > >

> > > > > Thus i will not comment any more on Late

> > > Santhanams comment.There

> > > is

> > > > > nothing more to add.

> > > > >

> > > > > Regds

> > > > > Pradeep

> > > > >

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

[Guest guest]

Dear Sri Pradeep,

 

I have to appreciate your habit of not reading the mail and

responding it or skipping the portions you do not want to answer.

Though I have not addressed this to you, since you replied, I have

to come and say. What you said of me, exactly applies to you

(Yukthivadi).

 

First please read what I wrote. I said that our Hindu astrology does

not coincide with the astronomical definitinos as Sri Kursija is

describing.

 

If we have to follow astronomy 100%, many of our Vedic astrological

definitions do not fit in. That is what I mentioned. I do follow the

astrology the way we are taught by Munis and through our classical

style. I asked Sri Kursija or for that matter, anyone not to mix

concepts to the convenience.

 

If you are a supporter of Astronomical paralance with astrology,

then answer my questions before you talk further. Otherwise, please

do not interfere.

 

Thanks

Satya S Kolachina

 

 

, " vijayadas_pradeep "

<vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

>

> Dear Satya ji

>

> You are talking in the language of Yukthi Vaadis,who does not know

> astrology but keep on critizing it.But you are not like that.You

are

> well aversed in astrology.You may not talk in that fashion.

>

> 1)Rahu & Ketu are astronomical points -Nodes of Moon -

> Philosophically they are the intersection of Atma-Mana padha.

>

> 2)Sun and Moon -They are considered as ''Grahas'' by

> Mahamunis.Planet is an English term.

>

> Gola ,Ganita,Hora - Mahamunis did not devise anything for

fun.There

> is a strong basis.

>

> Similarly the rules for aspect and their evaluations can be

> objectively measured in a mathematical fashion.

>

> Regds

> Pradeep

>

>

> , " Satya Sai Kolachina "

> <skolachi@> wrote:

> >

> > Dear Sri Kursija,

> >

> > Astronomy doesn't define 9 planets as incarnations of Lord

Vishnu.

> > Astronomy doesn't define Rahu and Kethu as planets. Even Sun and

> Moon

> > are not planets astronomically.

> > Astronomy doesn't define planets into different castes like

> Brahmin,

> > Khathriya, Vaishya and Sudra etc. THere are many things you

cannot

> > get from astronomy. Our seers gave Vedic astrology thousands of

> years

> > ago, whereas the science of astronomy developed much later.

> >

> > If you start talking in strict astronomical sense, Vedic/Hindu

> > astrology doesn't fit in there. The closest approximation to

> > astronomy is only the Western astrology; which some people

follow.

> > Let us not be hypocritical. If we follow Vedic astrology, let us

> not

> > feel bad to take the vedic astrology concepts as they are.

> >

> > Vedic astrology is more than science; it is divine science. You

do

> > not have to accept what I say. For that matter no one has to

> accept

> > what I say. But, when you try to equate something, do not do it

> > selectively.

> >

> > There is a concept of divinity superimposed over the

astronomical

> > facts; some concepts seem to be apparently known to us; there

are

> > many concepts not known or lost in the past centuries.

> >

> > Regards,

> >

> > Satya S Kolachina

> >

> >

> > , " S.C. Kursija " <sckursija@>

> > wrote:

> > >

> > > Respected members of the forum,

> > > I tried my best to keep away from this endless

> > > discussion but not with out poin. It has got its own

> > > merits. But the discussion is turning into criticism

> > > and trying to prove that other is worng. This is not a

> > > healthy way of discussion.

> > > Up till now I have not seen any member Who discuss

> > > the aspect. Why we have taken aspect in astrology? The

> > > aspect refers to an angular distance

> > > between two celestial bodies measured along the

> > > ecliptic. So all terms used in astrology are based on

> > > astronomy. If we take into consideration the

> > > definition of aspect in astronomy, there will not be

> > > any confusion whether we should use aspect in varga or

> > > not. The varga are not configuration of the planets on

> > > the bases of astronomy. We have created varga to look

> > > deep into the different aspects of life. The rashi

> > > chart is the map of the planets at the time of birth.

> > > It the nature position of the planets. The varga are

> > > the creation of astrologers not the nature or the

> > > Universe.Though Astrology is based on astronomy and

> > > mathematic, but not whimsical. It is a science.So

> > > aspect should not be seen in vargas.If any how we find

> > > out that one or two shlokas in one classic in favor of

> > > use of aspects in varga, it does not prove that aspect

> > > should be used in vergas.Why other classics are

> > > silent. Does astronomy allows it? If astronomy does

> > > not allows the same, we should reject the same

> > > immediately. The astrology is based on astronomy. The

> > > astronomy is not based on astrology. We have converted

> > > astronomy into the astrology for the benefit of human

> > > kind and universe to understand the future. Respect

> > > the astronomy not any person who ever he may be.The

> > > astrologers have developed the habit of giving

> > > explanation when event has taken place and try to fit

> > > the event in astrology, but does not improve himself

> > > and astrology. I have repeatedly requested the indian

> > > astronomers and mathematicians to modify and rectify

> > > the data of the astrology according to the present

> > > position of the planets and point of equinox so that

> > > we may be able to predict earth quake,pattern of rain

> > > and seasons, say mundane events.

> > > I do not want to criticise any one. If my words have

> > > hurt any body, I feel sorry for the same.

> > > --- vijayadas_pradeep <vijayadas_pradeep@>

> > > wrote:

> > >

> > > > Dear Prafulla ji

> > > >

> > > > This is really painful.You are really testing

> > > > patience.How many times

> > > > i have to tell you this.Should i bring the mail in

> > > > which i have

> > > > answered the same question to you.

> > > >

> > > > I clealry said,since he considered Varga charts -he

> > > > could notexplain

> > > > Lagna shadvargake shloka.

> > > >

> > > > Do you think others in this goup are fools.Do you

> > > > think this tactic

> > > > will work.It is there in the archives ,about what i

> > > > have said.

> > > >

> > > > Regds

> > > > Pradeep

> > > >

> > > > In , " Prafulla Gang "

> > > > <jyotish@> wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > > Dear Pradeep ji

> > > > >

> > > > > Do you agree with Shri Santhanam's conviction of

> > > > varga charts? I am

> > > > > repeatedly questioning your misquote, as he even

> > > > used aspects. You

> > > > > should not refer himn selectively. You do agree

> > > > with his 10th line

> > > > of

> > > > > the poem (i.e. aspects) , So I presume - you agree

> > > > with first 9

> > > > lines

> > > > > also (i.e. varga chakra, the yogas there, houses

> > > > there and so son).

> > > > >

> > > > > regards / Prafulla

> > > > >

> > > > > ,

> > > > " vijayadas_pradeep "

> > > > > <vijayadas_pradeep@> wrote:

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Dear Respected members

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Grahasphuta Drishti Kadhanadhyaya in BPHS talks

> > > > about the drishti

> > > > > > other than Rashi drishti mentioned in earlier

> > > > chapter.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Here sage says,apart from the common or

> > > > ordinary(Samanya) way of

> > > > > > seeing raha drshti we can evaluate graha drishti

> > > > based on

> > > > longitude.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Then sage describes how the strength of Graha

> > > > drishtis can be

> > > > > > evaluated.As Jupiter ,Mars and Saturn has

> > > > special aspects there

> > > > are

> > > > > > special rules mentioned to evaluate their

> > > > strength as well.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > So being the case,Shri Santhanam or any other

> > > > astrologer ,translator

> > > > > > cannot have a different view.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Now as varga placements are purely based on

> > > > varga lordship within

> > > > a

> > > > > > Rashi,the longitudinal identity and Rasmi has no

> > > > role to play.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > This is enough for any studen to understand what

> > > > is what.Moreover

> > > > > > shri Santhanam has categorically stated (for

> > > > those who are still

> > > > not

> > > > > > clear) that graha drishti is beyond my

> > > > understanding in Varga

> > > > Chakras.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Thus i will not comment any more on Late

> > > > Santhanams comment.There

> > > > is

> > > > > > nothing more to add.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Regds

> > > > > > Pradeep

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

[Guest guest]

Dear Sri Pradeep,

 

If you are competent enough to answer my questions raised to Sri

Kursija (since you have interfered), please answer them. OTherwise,

stop talking about others style.

 

Again this is an earnest request.

 

Thanks

Satya S Kolachina

 

, " vijayadas_pradeep "

<vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

>

> Dear Satya ji

>

> You are talking in the language of Yukthi Vaadis,who does not know

> astrology but keep on critizing it.But you are not like that.You

are

> well aversed in astrology.You may not talk in that fashion.

>

> 1)Rahu & Ketu are astronomical points -Nodes of Moon -

> Philosophically they are the intersection of Atma-Mana padha.

>

> 2)Sun and Moon -They are considered as ''Grahas'' by

> Mahamunis.Planet is an English term.

>

> Gola ,Ganita,Hora - Mahamunis did not devise anything for

fun.There

> is a strong basis.

>

> Similarly the rules for aspect and their evaluations can be

> objectively measured in a mathematical fashion.

>

> Regds

> Pradeep

>

>

> , " Satya Sai Kolachina "

> <skolachi@> wrote:

> >

> > Dear Sri Kursija,

> >

> > Astronomy doesn't define 9 planets as incarnations of Lord

Vishnu.

> > Astronomy doesn't define Rahu and Kethu as planets. Even Sun and

> Moon

> > are not planets astronomically.

> > Astronomy doesn't define planets into different castes like

> Brahmin,

> > Khathriya, Vaishya and Sudra etc. THere are many things you

cannot

> > get from astronomy. Our seers gave Vedic astrology thousands of

> years

> > ago, whereas the science of astronomy developed much later.

> >

> > If you start talking in strict astronomical sense, Vedic/Hindu

> > astrology doesn't fit in there. The closest approximation to

> > astronomy is only the Western astrology; which some people

follow.

> > Let us not be hypocritical. If we follow Vedic astrology, let us

> not

> > feel bad to take the vedic astrology concepts as they are.

> >

> > Vedic astrology is more than science; it is divine science. You

do

> > not have to accept what I say. For that matter no one has to

> accept

> > what I say. But, when you try to equate something, do not do it

> > selectively.

> >

> > There is a concept of divinity superimposed over the

astronomical

> > facts; some concepts seem to be apparently known to us; there

are

> > many concepts not known or lost in the past centuries.

> >

> > Regards,

> >

> > Satya S Kolachina

> >

> >

> > , " S.C. Kursija " <sckursija@>

> > wrote:

> > >

> > > Respected members of the forum,

> > > I tried my best to keep away from this endless

> > > discussion but not with out poin. It has got its own

> > > merits. But the discussion is turning into criticism

> > > and trying to prove that other is worng. This is not a

> > > healthy way of discussion.

> > > Up till now I have not seen any member Who discuss

> > > the aspect. Why we have taken aspect in astrology? The

> > > aspect refers to an angular distance

> > > between two celestial bodies measured along the

> > > ecliptic. So all terms used in astrology are based on

> > > astronomy. If we take into consideration the

> > > definition of aspect in astronomy, there will not be

> > > any confusion whether we should use aspect in varga or

> > > not. The varga are not configuration of the planets on

> > > the bases of astronomy. We have created varga to look

> > > deep into the different aspects of life. The rashi

> > > chart is the map of the planets at the time of birth.

> > > It the nature position of the planets. The varga are

> > > the creation of astrologers not the nature or the

> > > Universe.Though Astrology is based on astronomy and

> > > mathematic, but not whimsical. It is a science.So

> > > aspect should not be seen in vargas.If any how we find

> > > out that one or two shlokas in one classic in favor of

> > > use of aspects in varga, it does not prove that aspect

> > > should be used in vergas.Why other classics are

> > > silent. Does astronomy allows it? If astronomy does

> > > not allows the same, we should reject the same

> > > immediately. The astrology is based on astronomy. The

> > > astronomy is not based on astrology. We have converted

> > > astronomy into the astrology for the benefit of human

> > > kind and universe to understand the future. Respect

> > > the astronomy not any person who ever he may be.The

> > > astrologers have developed the habit of giving

> > > explanation when event has taken place and try to fit

> > > the event in astrology, but does not improve himself

> > > and astrology. I have repeatedly requested the indian

> > > astronomers and mathematicians to modify and rectify

> > > the data of the astrology according to the present

> > > position of the planets and point of equinox so that

> > > we may be able to predict earth quake,pattern of rain

> > > and seasons, say mundane events.

> > > I do not want to criticise any one. If my words have

> > > hurt any body, I feel sorry for the same.

> > > --- vijayadas_pradeep <vijayadas_pradeep@>

> > > wrote:

> > >

> > > > Dear Prafulla ji

> > > >

> > > > This is really painful.You are really testing

> > > > patience.How many times

> > > > i have to tell you this.Should i bring the mail in

> > > > which i have

> > > > answered the same question to you.

> > > >

> > > > I clealry said,since he considered Varga charts -he

> > > > could notexplain

> > > > Lagna shadvargake shloka.

> > > >

> > > > Do you think others in this goup are fools.Do you

> > > > think this tactic

> > > > will work.It is there in the archives ,about what i

> > > > have said.

> > > >

> > > > Regds

> > > > Pradeep

> > > >

> > > > In , " Prafulla Gang "

> > > > <jyotish@> wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > > Dear Pradeep ji

> > > > >

> > > > > Do you agree with Shri Santhanam's conviction of

> > > > varga charts? I am

> > > > > repeatedly questioning your misquote, as he even

> > > > used aspects. You

> > > > > should not refer himn selectively. You do agree

> > > > with his 10th line

> > > > of

> > > > > the poem (i.e. aspects) , So I presume - you agree

> > > > with first 9

> > > > lines

> > > > > also (i.e. varga chakra, the yogas there, houses

> > > > there and so son).

> > > > >

> > > > > regards / Prafulla

> > > > >

> > > > > ,

> > > > " vijayadas_pradeep "

> > > > > <vijayadas_pradeep@> wrote:

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Dear Respected members

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Grahasphuta Drishti Kadhanadhyaya in BPHS talks

> > > > about the drishti

> > > > > > other than Rashi drishti mentioned in earlier

> > > > chapter.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Here sage says,apart from the common or

> > > > ordinary(Samanya) way of

> > > > > > seeing raha drshti we can evaluate graha drishti

> > > > based on

> > > > longitude.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Then sage describes how the strength of Graha

> > > > drishtis can be

> > > > > > evaluated.As Jupiter ,Mars and Saturn has

> > > > special aspects there

> > > > are

> > > > > > special rules mentioned to evaluate their

> > > > strength as well.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > So being the case,Shri Santhanam or any other

> > > > astrologer ,translator

> > > > > > cannot have a different view.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Now as varga placements are purely based on

> > > > varga lordship within

> > > > a

> > > > > > Rashi,the longitudinal identity and Rasmi has no

> > > > role to play.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > This is enough for any studen to understand what

> > > > is what.Moreover

> > > > > > shri Santhanam has categorically stated (for

> > > > those who are still

> > > > not

> > > > > > clear) that graha drishti is beyond my

> > > > understanding in Varga

> > > > Chakras.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Thus i will not comment any more on Late

> > > > Santhanams comment.There

> > > > is

> > > > > > nothing more to add.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Regds

> > > > > > Pradeep

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

[Guest guest]

Astronomically Rahu and Kethu are only Nodes of moon; but they have

been given the status of plaents by our Maha munis. What I was

saying is do not bring 100% astronomical paralance into vedic

astrology, as it fails in several areas.

 

I hope you can understand English and hence understand what I am

saying here.

Satya

 

, " vijayadas_pradeep "

<vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

>

> Dear Satya ji

>

> You are talking in the language of Yukthi Vaadis,who does not know

> astrology but keep on critizing it.But you are not like that.You

are

> well aversed in astrology.You may not talk in that fashion.

>

> 1)Rahu & Ketu are astronomical points -Nodes of Moon -

> Philosophically they are the intersection of Atma-Mana padha.

>

> 2)Sun and Moon -They are considered as ''Grahas'' by

> Mahamunis.Planet is an English term.

>

> Gola ,Ganita,Hora - Mahamunis did not devise anything for

fun.There

> is a strong basis.

>

> Similarly the rules for aspect and their evaluations can be

> objectively measured in a mathematical fashion.

>

> Regds

> Pradeep

>

>

> , " Satya Sai Kolachina "

> <skolachi@> wrote:

> >

> > Dear Sri Kursija,

> >

> > Astronomy doesn't define 9 planets as incarnations of Lord

Vishnu.

> > Astronomy doesn't define Rahu and Kethu as planets. Even Sun and

> Moon

> > are not planets astronomically.

> > Astronomy doesn't define planets into different castes like

> Brahmin,

> > Khathriya, Vaishya and Sudra etc. THere are many things you

cannot

> > get from astronomy. Our seers gave Vedic astrology thousands of

> years

> > ago, whereas the science of astronomy developed much later.

> >

> > If you start talking in strict astronomical sense, Vedic/Hindu

> > astrology doesn't fit in there. The closest approximation to

> > astronomy is only the Western astrology; which some people

follow.

> > Let us not be hypocritical. If we follow Vedic astrology, let us

> not

> > feel bad to take the vedic astrology concepts as they are.

> >

> > Vedic astrology is more than science; it is divine science. You

do

> > not have to accept what I say. For that matter no one has to

> accept

> > what I say. But, when you try to equate something, do not do it

> > selectively.

> >

> > There is a concept of divinity superimposed over the

astronomical

> > facts; some concepts seem to be apparently known to us; there

are

> > many concepts not known or lost in the past centuries.

> >

> > Regards,

> >

> > Satya S Kolachina

> >

> >

> > , " S.C. Kursija " <sckursija@>

> > wrote:

> > >

> > > Respected members of the forum,

> > > I tried my best to keep away from this endless

> > > discussion but not with out poin. It has got its own

> > > merits. But the discussion is turning into criticism

> > > and trying to prove that other is worng. This is not a

> > > healthy way of discussion.

> > > Up till now I have not seen any member Who discuss

> > > the aspect. Why we have taken aspect in astrology? The

> > > aspect refers to an angular distance

> > > between two celestial bodies measured along the

> > > ecliptic. So all terms used in astrology are based on

> > > astronomy. If we take into consideration the

> > > definition of aspect in astronomy, there will not be

> > > any confusion whether we should use aspect in varga or

> > > not. The varga are not configuration of the planets on

> > > the bases of astronomy. We have created varga to look

> > > deep into the different aspects of life. The rashi

> > > chart is the map of the planets at the time of birth.

> > > It the nature position of the planets. The varga are

> > > the creation of astrologers not the nature or the

> > > Universe.Though Astrology is based on astronomy and

> > > mathematic, but not whimsical. It is a science.So

> > > aspect should not be seen in vargas.If any how we find

> > > out that one or two shlokas in one classic in favor of

> > > use of aspects in varga, it does not prove that aspect

> > > should be used in vergas.Why other classics are

> > > silent. Does astronomy allows it? If astronomy does

> > > not allows the same, we should reject the same

> > > immediately. The astrology is based on astronomy. The

> > > astronomy is not based on astrology. We have converted

> > > astronomy into the astrology for the benefit of human

> > > kind and universe to understand the future. Respect

> > > the astronomy not any person who ever he may be.The

> > > astrologers have developed the habit of giving

> > > explanation when event has taken place and try to fit

> > > the event in astrology, but does not improve himself

> > > and astrology. I have repeatedly requested the indian

> > > astronomers and mathematicians to modify and rectify

> > > the data of the astrology according to the present

> > > position of the planets and point of equinox so that

> > > we may be able to predict earth quake,pattern of rain

> > > and seasons, say mundane events.

> > > I do not want to criticise any one. If my words have

> > > hurt any body, I feel sorry for the same.

> > > --- vijayadas_pradeep <vijayadas_pradeep@>

> > > wrote:

> > >

> > > > Dear Prafulla ji

> > > >

> > > > This is really painful.You are really testing

> > > > patience.How many times

> > > > i have to tell you this.Should i bring the mail in

> > > > which i have

> > > > answered the same question to you.

> > > >

> > > > I clealry said,since he considered Varga charts -he

> > > > could notexplain

> > > > Lagna shadvargake shloka.

> > > >

> > > > Do you think others in this goup are fools.Do you

> > > > think this tactic

> > > > will work.It is there in the archives ,about what i

> > > > have said.

> > > >

> > > > Regds

> > > > Pradeep

> > > >

> > > > In , " Prafulla Gang "

> > > > <jyotish@> wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > > Dear Pradeep ji

> > > > >

> > > > > Do you agree with Shri Santhanam's conviction of

> > > > varga charts? I am

> > > > > repeatedly questioning your misquote, as he even

> > > > used aspects. You

> > > > > should not refer himn selectively. You do agree

> > > > with his 10th line

> > > > of

> > > > > the poem (i.e. aspects) , So I presume - you agree

> > > > with first 9

> > > > lines

> > > > > also (i.e. varga chakra, the yogas there, houses

> > > > there and so son).

> > > > >

> > > > > regards / Prafulla

> > > > >

> > > > > ,

> > > > " vijayadas_pradeep "

> > > > > <vijayadas_pradeep@> wrote:

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Dear Respected members

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Grahasphuta Drishti Kadhanadhyaya in BPHS talks

> > > > about the drishti

> > > > > > other than Rashi drishti mentioned in earlier

> > > > chapter.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Here sage says,apart from the common or

> > > > ordinary(Samanya) way of

> > > > > > seeing raha drshti we can evaluate graha drishti

> > > > based on

> > > > longitude.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Then sage describes how the strength of Graha

> > > > drishtis can be

> > > > > > evaluated.As Jupiter ,Mars and Saturn has

> > > > special aspects there

> > > > are

> > > > > > special rules mentioned to evaluate their

> > > > strength as well.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > So being the case,Shri Santhanam or any other

> > > > astrologer ,translator

> > > > > > cannot have a different view.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Now as varga placements are purely based on

> > > > varga lordship within

> > > > a

> > > > > > Rashi,the longitudinal identity and Rasmi has no

> > > > role to play.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > This is enough for any studen to understand what

> > > > is what.Moreover

> > > > > > shri Santhanam has categorically stated (for

> > > > those who are still

> > > > not

> > > > > > clear) that graha drishti is beyond my

> > > > understanding in Varga

> > > > Chakras.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Thus i will not comment any more on Late

> > > > Santhanams comment.There

> > > > is

> > > > > > nothing more to add.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Regds

> > > > > > Pradeep

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

[Guest guest]

Dear Satya ji

 

You are right.One should have the ability to differentiate.

But it depends from case to case.For Graha drishti - The rules are

clear.

 

Regarding Rahu -Ketu .It is not an assumption but has got a

mathematical basis.They are called Chaya Grahas.Graha in astrology

and planet in english are not one and the same.

 

 

Whether the consideration is having a mathematical foundation or not

is the question.It is having.

 

I agree with your point that certain things cannot be quantitatively

measured.But when Mahmunis have set some rules for basics,we cannot

violate.Within rules we may improvise.

 

Regds

Pradeep

 

, " Satya Sai Kolachina "

<skolachi wrote:

>

> Astronomically Rahu and Kethu are only Nodes of moon; but they

have

> been given the status of plaents by our Maha munis. What I was

> saying is do not bring 100% astronomical paralance into vedic

> astrology, as it fails in several areas.

>

> I hope you can understand English and hence understand what I am

> saying here.

> Satya

>

> , " vijayadas_pradeep "

> <vijayadas_pradeep@> wrote:

> >

> > Dear Satya ji

> >

> > You are talking in the language of Yukthi Vaadis,who does not

know

> > astrology but keep on critizing it.But you are not like that.You

> are

> > well aversed in astrology.You may not talk in that fashion.

> >

> > 1)Rahu & Ketu are astronomical points -Nodes of Moon -

> > Philosophically they are the intersection of Atma-Mana padha.

> >

> > 2)Sun and Moon -They are considered as ''Grahas'' by

> > Mahamunis.Planet is an English term.

> >

> > Gola ,Ganita,Hora - Mahamunis did not devise anything for

> fun.There

> > is a strong basis.

> >

> > Similarly the rules for aspect and their evaluations can be

> > objectively measured in a mathematical fashion.

> >

> > Regds

> > Pradeep

> >

> >

> > , " Satya Sai Kolachina "

> > <skolachi@> wrote:

> > >

> > > Dear Sri Kursija,

> > >

> > > Astronomy doesn't define 9 planets as incarnations of Lord

> Vishnu.

> > > Astronomy doesn't define Rahu and Kethu as planets. Even Sun

and

> > Moon

> > > are not planets astronomically.

> > > Astronomy doesn't define planets into different castes like

> > Brahmin,

> > > Khathriya, Vaishya and Sudra etc. THere are many things you

> cannot

> > > get from astronomy. Our seers gave Vedic astrology thousands

of

> > years

> > > ago, whereas the science of astronomy developed much later.

> > >

> > > If you start talking in strict astronomical sense, Vedic/Hindu

> > > astrology doesn't fit in there. The closest approximation to

> > > astronomy is only the Western astrology; which some people

> follow.

> > > Let us not be hypocritical. If we follow Vedic astrology, let

us

> > not

> > > feel bad to take the vedic astrology concepts as they are.

> > >

> > > Vedic astrology is more than science; it is divine science.

You

> do

> > > not have to accept what I say. For that matter no one has to

> > accept

> > > what I say. But, when you try to equate something, do not do

it

> > > selectively.

> > >

> > > There is a concept of divinity superimposed over the

> astronomical

> > > facts; some concepts seem to be apparently known to us; there

> are

> > > many concepts not known or lost in the past centuries.

> > >

> > > Regards,

> > >

> > > Satya S Kolachina

> > >

> > >

> > > , " S.C. Kursija "

<sckursija@>

> > > wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Respected members of the forum,

> > > > I tried my best to keep away from this endless

> > > > discussion but not with out poin. It has got its own

> > > > merits. But the discussion is turning into criticism

> > > > and trying to prove that other is worng. This is not a

> > > > healthy way of discussion.

> > > > Up till now I have not seen any member Who discuss

> > > > the aspect. Why we have taken aspect in astrology? The

> > > > aspect refers to an angular distance

> > > > between two celestial bodies measured along the

> > > > ecliptic. So all terms used in astrology are based on

> > > > astronomy. If we take into consideration the

> > > > definition of aspect in astronomy, there will not be

> > > > any confusion whether we should use aspect in varga or

> > > > not. The varga are not configuration of the planets on

> > > > the bases of astronomy. We have created varga to look

> > > > deep into the different aspects of life. The rashi

> > > > chart is the map of the planets at the time of birth.

> > > > It the nature position of the planets. The varga are

> > > > the creation of astrologers not the nature or the

> > > > Universe.Though Astrology is based on astronomy and

> > > > mathematic, but not whimsical. It is a science.So

> > > > aspect should not be seen in vargas.If any how we find

> > > > out that one or two shlokas in one classic in favor of

> > > > use of aspects in varga, it does not prove that aspect

> > > > should be used in vergas.Why other classics are

> > > > silent. Does astronomy allows it? If astronomy does

> > > > not allows the same, we should reject the same

> > > > immediately. The astrology is based on astronomy. The

> > > > astronomy is not based on astrology. We have converted

> > > > astronomy into the astrology for the benefit of human

> > > > kind and universe to understand the future. Respect

> > > > the astronomy not any person who ever he may be.The

> > > > astrologers have developed the habit of giving

> > > > explanation when event has taken place and try to fit

> > > > the event in astrology, but does not improve himself

> > > > and astrology. I have repeatedly requested the indian

> > > > astronomers and mathematicians to modify and rectify

> > > > the data of the astrology according to the present

> > > > position of the planets and point of equinox so that

> > > > we may be able to predict earth quake,pattern of rain

> > > > and seasons, say mundane events.

> > > > I do not want to criticise any one. If my words have

> > > > hurt any body, I feel sorry for the same.

> > > > --- vijayadas_pradeep <vijayadas_pradeep@>

> > > > wrote:

> > > >

> > > > > Dear Prafulla ji

> > > > >

> > > > > This is really painful.You are really testing

> > > > > patience.How many times

> > > > > i have to tell you this.Should i bring the mail in

> > > > > which i have

> > > > > answered the same question to you.

> > > > >

> > > > > I clealry said,since he considered Varga charts -he

> > > > > could notexplain

> > > > > Lagna shadvargake shloka.

> > > > >

> > > > > Do you think others in this goup are fools.Do you

> > > > > think this tactic

> > > > > will work.It is there in the archives ,about what i

> > > > > have said.

> > > > >

> > > > > Regds

> > > > > Pradeep

> > > > >

> > > > > In , " Prafulla Gang "

> > > > > <jyotish@> wrote:

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Dear Pradeep ji

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Do you agree with Shri Santhanam's conviction of

> > > > > varga charts? I am

> > > > > > repeatedly questioning your misquote, as he even

> > > > > used aspects. You

> > > > > > should not refer himn selectively. You do agree

> > > > > with his 10th line

> > > > > of

> > > > > > the poem (i.e. aspects) , So I presume - you agree

> > > > > with first 9

> > > > > lines

> > > > > > also (i.e. varga chakra, the yogas there, houses

> > > > > there and so son).

> > > > > >

> > > > > > regards / Prafulla

> > > > > >

> > > > > > ,

> > > > > " vijayadas_pradeep "

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

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Dear Respected members

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Grahasphuta Drishti Kadhanadhyaya in BPHS talks

> > > > > about the drishti

> > > > > > > other than Rashi drishti mentioned in earlier

> > > > > chapter.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Here sage says,apart from the common or

> > > > > ordinary(Samanya) way of

> > > > > > > seeing raha drshti we can evaluate graha drishti

> > > > > based on

> > > > > longitude.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Then sage describes how the strength of Graha

> > > > > drishtis can be

> > > > > > > evaluated.As Jupiter ,Mars and Saturn has

> > > > > special aspects there

> > > > > are

> > > > > > > special rules mentioned to evaluate their

> > > > > strength as well.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > So being the case,Shri Santhanam or any other

> > > > > astrologer ,translator

> > > > > > > cannot have a different view.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Now as varga placements are purely based on

> > > > > varga lordship within

> > > > > a

> > > > > > > Rashi,the longitudinal identity and Rasmi has no

> > > > > role to play.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > This is enough for any studen to understand what

> > > > > is what.Moreover

> > > > > > > shri Santhanam has categorically stated (for

> > > > > those who are still

> > > > > not

> > > > > > > clear) that graha drishti is beyond my

> > > > > understanding in Varga

> > > > > Chakras.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Thus i will not comment any more on Late

> > > > > Santhanams comment.There

> > > > > is

> > > > > > > nothing more to add.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Regds

> > > > > > > Pradeep

> > > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >