Navamsha opposition -Prafulla ji - Late Santhanam

[Guest guest]

Dear Prafulla ji

 

Every ''Navamsha chart'' will have atleast one opposition.If they

are in opposition they should ''aspect'' as per you.Also as per you

Late Santhanam too felt ,if in opposition they will ''aspect''.

 

So you mean to say -

 

While Translating BPHS

 

1)Late Santhanam was unaware about this simple ''opposition''

 

2)Late Santhanam for chumma some fun mentioned so during the

translation

 

Either of the above should be ''true'' - else why should the BPHS

translator say as mentioned below.

 

Late Sri R. Santhanam states in his book Deva Keralam that " the

aspect as a rule should be seen in rashi chart only, not in navamsha

and other charts, for aspects emanate only by longitudinal

distances " .

 

This will be my last reply for your misquote on Late Santhanam's

view on aspects in varga chakras.

 

Regds

Pradeep

[Guest guest]

Dear Shri Pradeep ji

 

 

Now you mean to say that - opposition of planets in D chakra will

affect without aspects? how? guru in lagan in D9 and venus in 7th in

D9 - how will they affect together, without considering this

association through aspects.

 

You again twisted.

 

I asked you one basic thing. If you do not approve late Santhanam's D

chakra interpretation model - then why are you referring his one

statement on aspects in BPHS (overlooking his own case studies in

TOA). Do you mean to say that since you accept his one statement on

aspects, do you accept this theory on D chakra (if they exist, whether

combination works in D chakra etc). If his D chakra theory is not

accepted by you, then is it not selective and misquote.

 

The contention is not only on Aspects, but on the existence of D

chakra itself.

 

Or I understand now that - you have agreed that - D chakra exists,

Combinations can be considered in D charts.

 

If you are rejecting his D chakra opinion - then please do not quote

him for aspects, without reading his articles and case studies - which

are available in public domain. It will be injustice with learned

soul. Forget about us, but do respect a learned soul.

 

regards / Prafulla

 

 

, " vijayadas_pradeep "

<vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

>

> Dear Prafulla ji

>

> Every ''Navamsha chart'' will have atleast one opposition.If they

> are in opposition they should ''aspect'' as per you.Also as per you

> Late Santhanam too felt ,if in opposition they will ''aspect''.

>

> So you mean to say -

>

> While Translating BPHS

>

> 1)Late Santhanam was unaware about this simple ''opposition''

>

> 2)Late Santhanam for chumma some fun mentioned so during the

> translation

>

> Either of the above should be ''true'' - else why should the BPHS

> translator say as mentioned below.

>

> Late Sri R. Santhanam states in his book Deva Keralam that " the

> aspect as a rule should be seen in rashi chart only, not in navamsha

> and other charts, for aspects emanate only by longitudinal

> distances " .

>

> This will be my last reply for your misquote on Late Santhanam's

> view on aspects in varga chakras.

>

> Regds

> Pradeep

>

[Guest guest]

Dear Pradeep ji

 

u said -

 

> Late Sri R. Santhanam states in his book Deva Keralam that " the

> aspect as a rule should be seen in rashi chart only, not in navamsha

> and other charts, for aspects emanate only by longitudinal

> distances " .

 

Can u tell me what are longitudinal aspects ???

 

i hoep they are the same as in western astrology ( 30,45, 60 , 90 ,

120 , 135, 150 , 180) and minor aspects like 36 , 72 etc.)

 

Do u know how varga charts are made...how D-9 is made. if yes then

you yourself disagree with your views.

 

late santhanam did not mention of Pluto in BPHS..but he has used in

artcile as quoted by Prafulla ji. so what does it imply? can we say

that - Late Santhnam was against using Pluto - as his BPHS

translation talks only for 9 grahas

 

I hope you will reply to each of my line asked. without skipping

anything.

 

Warm Regards,

 

Tarun

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

, " Prafulla Gang " <jyotish

wrote:

>

> Dear Shri Pradeep ji

>

>

> Now you mean to say that - opposition of planets in D chakra will

> affect without aspects? how? guru in lagan in D9 and venus in 7th in

> D9 - how will they affect together, without considering this

> association through aspects.

>

> You again twisted.

>

> I asked you one basic thing. If you do not approve late Santhanam's

D

> chakra interpretation model - then why are you referring his one

> statement on aspects in BPHS (overlooking his own case studies in

> TOA). Do you mean to say that since you accept his one statement on

> aspects, do you accept this theory on D chakra (if they exist,

whether

> combination works in D chakra etc). If his D chakra theory is not

> accepted by you, then is it not selective and misquote.

>

> The contention is not only on Aspects, but on the existence of D

> chakra itself.

>

> Or I understand now that - you have agreed that - D chakra exists,

> Combinations can be considered in D charts.

>

> If you are rejecting his D chakra opinion - then please do not quote

> him for aspects, without reading his articles and case studies -

which

> are available in public domain. It will be injustice with learned

> soul. Forget about us, but do respect a learned soul.

>

> regards / Prafulla

>

>

> , " vijayadas_pradeep "

> <vijayadas_pradeep@> wrote:

> >

> > Dear Prafulla ji

> >

> > Every ''Navamsha chart'' will have atleast one opposition.If they

> > are in opposition they should ''aspect'' as per you.Also as per

you

> > Late Santhanam too felt ,if in opposition they will ''aspect''.

> >

> > So you mean to say -

> >

> > While Translating BPHS

> >

> > 1)Late Santhanam was unaware about this simple ''opposition''

> >

> > 2)Late Santhanam for chumma some fun mentioned so during the

> > translation

> >

> > Either of the above should be ''true'' - else why should the BPHS

> > translator say as mentioned below.

> >

> > Late Sri R. Santhanam states in his book Deva Keralam that " the

> > aspect as a rule should be seen in rashi chart only, not in

navamsha

> > and other charts, for aspects emanate only by longitudinal

> > distances " .

> >

> > This will be my last reply for your misquote on Late Santhanam's

> > view on aspects in varga chakras.

> >

> > Regds

> > Pradeep

> >

>

[Guest guest]

Dear Shri Tarun

 

I do not want to tell anything.I can only make a sleeping person

awake not a pretender.

 

Neither i do what is longitudinal nor i know how to draw varga charts

as proposed by your group.Neither does Late Santhanam.

 

For your kind information it is not western.Ask your friend who gave

you kha what is Sphuta.

 

Then show him the following -

 

" 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. "

 

Pls ask him if this earlier chapter is from BPHS or western.

 

Dear friend ,you are young.Kindly verify things before you talk.It is

not an advise -But always do the homework before we present something.

 

Regds

Pradeep

 

 

, " Tarun " <tarun.virgo wrote:

>

> Dear Pradeep ji

>

> u said -

>

> > Late Sri R. Santhanam states in his book Deva Keralam that " the

> > aspect as a rule should be seen in rashi chart only, not in

navamsha

> > and other charts, for aspects emanate only by longitudinal

> > distances " .

>

> Can u tell me what are longitudinal aspects ???

>

> i hoep they are the same as in western astrology ( 30,45, 60 , 90 ,

> 120 , 135, 150 , 180) and minor aspects like 36 , 72 etc.)

>

> Do u know how varga charts are made...how D-9 is made. if yes then

> you yourself disagree with your views.

>

> late santhanam did not mention of Pluto in BPHS..but he has used in

> artcile as quoted by Prafulla ji. so what does it imply? can we say

> that - Late Santhnam was against using Pluto - as his BPHS

> translation talks only for 9 grahas

>

> I hope you will reply to each of my line asked. without skipping

> anything.

>

> Warm Regards,

>

> Tarun

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

, " Prafulla Gang " <jyotish@>

> wrote:

> >

> > Dear Shri Pradeep ji

> >

> >

> > Now you mean to say that - opposition of planets in D chakra will

> > affect without aspects? how? guru in lagan in D9 and venus in 7th

in

> > D9 - how will they affect together, without considering this

> > association through aspects.

> >

> > You again twisted.

> >

> > I asked you one basic thing. If you do not approve late

Santhanam's

> D

> > chakra interpretation model - then why are you referring his one

> > statement on aspects in BPHS (overlooking his own case studies in

> > TOA). Do you mean to say that since you accept his one statement

on

> > aspects, do you accept this theory on D chakra (if they exist,

> whether

> > combination works in D chakra etc). If his D chakra theory is not

> > accepted by you, then is it not selective and misquote.

> >

> > The contention is not only on Aspects, but on the existence of D

> > chakra itself.

> >

> > Or I understand now that - you have agreed that - D chakra exists,

> > Combinations can be considered in D charts.

> >

> > If you are rejecting his D chakra opinion - then please do not

quote

> > him for aspects, without reading his articles and case studies -

> which

> > are available in public domain. It will be injustice with learned

> > soul. Forget about us, but do respect a learned soul.

> >

> > regards / Prafulla

> >

> >

> > , " vijayadas_pradeep "

> > <vijayadas_pradeep@> wrote:

> > >

> > > Dear Prafulla ji

> > >

> > > Every ''Navamsha chart'' will have atleast one opposition.If

they

> > > are in opposition they should ''aspect'' as per you.Also as per

> you

> > > Late Santhanam too felt ,if in opposition they will ''aspect''.

> > >

> > > So you mean to say -

> > >

> > > While Translating BPHS

> > >

> > > 1)Late Santhanam was unaware about this simple ''opposition''

> > >

> > > 2)Late Santhanam for chumma some fun mentioned so during the

> > > translation

> > >

> > > Either of the above should be ''true'' - else why should the

BPHS

> > > translator say as mentioned below.

> > >

> > > Late Sri R. Santhanam states in his book Deva Keralam that "

the

> > > aspect as a rule should be seen in rashi chart only, not in

> navamsha

> > > and other charts, for aspects emanate only by longitudinal

> > > distances " .

> > >

> > > This will be my last reply for your misquote on Late

Santhanam's

> > > view on aspects in varga chakras.

> > >

> > > Regds

> > > Pradeep

> > >

> >

>

[Guest guest]

Dear Shri Pradeepji,

 

Again the same thing has been started.

You are quoting one side of Shri Santhanamji,

whereas I have already priovided few references from his

own publications, in the previous part of the thread, where

he has clearly used aspects in vargas, and so has BV Ramanji

and so has Mr. KN rao. And I have provided proof from all these

authors publications. So who has done more reading actually among

the members present here ?

 

Regardless of the proofs which I have given, where all

these authors have used aspects in Vargas,

If You notice all my messages, posts, I have nowhere

mentioned that they were right and now here mentioned that

they were wrong.

 

So what does that mean ?

 

It means that I am just following their commentaries and

explanations without any bias in my mind, and without

any pre-set thinking'that they are wrong or right.

 

And thats how we are all supposed to behave.

 

And those who say that they are wrong,

have to prove this conclusively with their logic-tarka-

pramana, or else just stay quiet, like we do.

 

regards,

Bhaskar.

 

 

-- In , " vijayadas_pradeep "

<vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

>

> Dear Shri Tarun

>

> I do not want to tell anything.I can only make a sleeping person

> awake not a pretender.

>

> Neither i do what is longitudinal nor i know how to draw varga charts

> as proposed by your group.Neither does Late Santhanam.

>

> For your kind information it is not western.Ask your friend who gave

> you kha what is Sphuta.

>

> Then show him the following -

>

> " 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. "

>

> Pls ask him if this earlier chapter is from BPHS or western.

>

> Dear friend ,you are young.Kindly verify things before you talk.It is

> not an advise -But always do the homework before we present something.

>

> Regds

> Pradeep

>

>

> , " Tarun " <tarun.virgo@> wrote:

> >

> > Dear Pradeep ji

> >

> > u said -

> >

> > > Late Sri R. Santhanam states in his book Deva Keralam that " the

> > > aspect as a rule should be seen in rashi chart only, not in

> navamsha

> > > and other charts, for aspects emanate only by longitudinal

> > > distances " .

> >

> > Can u tell me what are longitudinal aspects ???

> >

> > i hoep they are the same as in western astrology ( 30,45, 60 , 90 ,

> > 120 , 135, 150 , 180) and minor aspects like 36 , 72 etc.)

> >

> > Do u know how varga charts are made...how D-9 is made. if yes then

> > you yourself disagree with your views.

> >

> > late santhanam did not mention of Pluto in BPHS..but he has used in

> > artcile as quoted by Prafulla ji. so what does it imply? can we say

> > that - Late Santhnam was against using Pluto - as his BPHS

> > translation talks only for 9 grahas

> >

> > I hope you will reply to each of my line asked. without skipping

> > anything.

> >

> > Warm Regards,

> >

> > Tarun

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > , " Prafulla Gang " <jyotish@>

> > wrote:

> > >

> > > Dear Shri Pradeep ji

> > >

> > >

> > > Now you mean to say that - opposition of planets in D chakra will

> > > affect without aspects? how? guru in lagan in D9 and venus in 7th

> in

> > > D9 - how will they affect together, without considering this

> > > association through aspects.

> > >

> > > You again twisted.

> > >

> > > I asked you one basic thing. If you do not approve late

> Santhanam's

> > D

> > > chakra interpretation model - then why are you referring his one

> > > statement on aspects in BPHS (overlooking his own case studies in

> > > TOA). Do you mean to say that since you accept his one statement

> on

> > > aspects, do you accept this theory on D chakra (if they exist,

> > whether

> > > combination works in D chakra etc). If his D chakra theory is not

> > > accepted by you, then is it not selective and misquote.

> > >

> > > The contention is not only on Aspects, but on the existence of D

> > > chakra itself.

> > >

> > > Or I understand now that - you have agreed that - D chakra exists,

> > > Combinations can be considered in D charts.

> > >

> > > If you are rejecting his D chakra opinion - then please do not

> quote

> > > him for aspects, without reading his articles and case studies -

> > which

> > > are available in public domain. It will be injustice with learned

> > > soul. Forget about us, but do respect a learned soul.

> > >

> > > regards / Prafulla

> > >

> > >

> > > , " vijayadas_pradeep "

> > > <vijayadas_pradeep@> wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Dear Prafulla ji

> > > >

> > > > Every ''Navamsha chart'' will have atleast one opposition.If

> they

> > > > are in opposition they should ''aspect'' as per you.Also as per

> > you

> > > > Late Santhanam too felt ,if in opposition they will ''aspect''.

> > > >

> > > > So you mean to say -

> > > >

> > > > While Translating BPHS

> > > >

> > > > 1)Late Santhanam was unaware about this simple ''opposition''

> > > >

> > > > 2)Late Santhanam for chumma some fun mentioned so during the

> > > > translation

> > > >

> > > > Either of the above should be ''true'' - else why should the

> BPHS

> > > > translator say as mentioned below.

> > > >

> > > > Late Sri R. Santhanam states in his book Deva Keralam that "

> the

> > > > aspect as a rule should be seen in rashi chart only, not in

> > navamsha

> > > > and other charts, for aspects emanate only by longitudinal

> > > > distances " .

> > > >

> > > > This will be my last reply for your misquote on Late

> Santhanam's

> > > > view on aspects in varga chakras.

> > > >

> > > > Regds

> > > > Pradeep

> > > >

> > >

> >

>

[Guest guest]

Dear Bhaskar ji

 

Kindly leave me alone.I just replied to a mail from Prafulla ji.

 

Regds

Pradeep

 

, " Bhaskar " <bhaskar_jyotish

wrote:

>

> Dear Shri Pradeepji,

>

> Again the same thing has been started.

> You are quoting one side of Shri Santhanamji,

> whereas I have already priovided few references from his

> own publications, in the previous part of the thread, where

> he has clearly used aspects in vargas, and so has BV Ramanji

> and so has Mr. KN rao. And I have provided proof from all these

> authors publications. So who has done more reading actually among

> the members present here ?

>

> Regardless of the proofs which I have given, where all

> these authors have used aspects in Vargas,

> If You notice all my messages, posts, I have nowhere

> mentioned that they were right and now here mentioned that

> they were wrong.

>

> So what does that mean ?

>

> It means that I am just following their commentaries and

> explanations without any bias in my mind, and without

> any pre-set thinking'that they are wrong or right.

>

> And thats how we are all supposed to behave.

>

> And those who say that they are wrong,

> have to prove this conclusively with their logic-tarka-

> pramana, or else just stay quiet, like we do.

>

> regards,

> Bhaskar.

>

>

> -- In , " vijayadas_pradeep "

> <vijayadas_pradeep@> wrote:

> >

> > Dear Shri Tarun

> >

> > I do not want to tell anything.I can only make a sleeping person

> > awake not a pretender.

> >

> > Neither i do what is longitudinal nor i know how to draw varga

charts

> > as proposed by your group.Neither does Late Santhanam.

> >

> > For your kind information it is not western.Ask your friend who

gave

> > you kha what is Sphuta.

> >

> > Then show him the following -

> >

> > " 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. "

> >

> > Pls ask him if this earlier chapter is from BPHS or western.

> >

> > Dear friend ,you are young.Kindly verify things before you

talk.It is

> > not an advise -But always do the homework before we present

something.

> >

> > Regds

> > Pradeep

> >

> >

> > , " Tarun " <tarun.virgo@> wrote:

> > >

> > > Dear Pradeep ji

> > >

> > > u said -

> > >

> > > > Late Sri R. Santhanam states in his book Deva Keralam that "

the

> > > > aspect as a rule should be seen in rashi chart only, not in

> > navamsha

> > > > and other charts, for aspects emanate only by longitudinal

> > > > distances " .

> > >

> > > Can u tell me what are longitudinal aspects ???

> > >

> > > i hoep they are the same as in western astrology ( 30,45, 60 ,

90 ,

> > > 120 , 135, 150 , 180) and minor aspects like 36 , 72 etc.)

> > >

> > > Do u know how varga charts are made...how D-9 is made. if yes

then

> > > you yourself disagree with your views.

> > >

> > > late santhanam did not mention of Pluto in BPHS..but he has

used in

> > > artcile as quoted by Prafulla ji. so what does it imply? can we

say

> > > that - Late Santhnam was against using Pluto - as his BPHS

> > > translation talks only for 9 grahas

> > >

> > > I hope you will reply to each of my line asked. without

skipping

> > > anything.

> > >

> > > Warm Regards,

> > >

> > > Tarun

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > , " Prafulla Gang " <jyotish@>

> > > wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Dear Shri Pradeep ji

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Now you mean to say that - opposition of planets in D chakra

will

> > > > affect without aspects? how? guru in lagan in D9 and venus in

7th

> > in

> > > > D9 - how will they affect together, without considering this

> > > > association through aspects.

> > > >

> > > > You again twisted.

> > > >

> > > > I asked you one basic thing. If you do not approve late

> > Santhanam's

> > > D

> > > > chakra interpretation model - then why are you referring his

one

> > > > statement on aspects in BPHS (overlooking his own case

studies in

> > > > TOA). Do you mean to say that since you accept his one

statement

> > on

> > > > aspects, do you accept this theory on D chakra (if they

exist,

> > > whether

> > > > combination works in D chakra etc). If his D chakra theory is

not

> > > > accepted by you, then is it not selective and misquote.

> > > >

> > > > The contention is not only on Aspects, but on the existence

of D

> > > > chakra itself.

> > > >

> > > > Or I understand now that - you have agreed that - D chakra

exists,

> > > > Combinations can be considered in D charts.

> > > >

> > > > If you are rejecting his D chakra opinion - then please do

not

> > quote

> > > > him for aspects, without reading his articles and case

studies -

> > > which

> > > > are available in public domain. It will be injustice with

learned

> > > > soul. Forget about us, but do respect a learned soul.

> > > >

> > > > regards / Prafulla

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > , " vijayadas_pradeep "

> > > > <vijayadas_pradeep@> wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > > Dear Prafulla ji

> > > > >

> > > > > Every ''Navamsha chart'' will have atleast one

opposition.If

> > they

> > > > > are in opposition they should ''aspect'' as per you.Also as

per

> > > you

> > > > > Late Santhanam too felt ,if in opposition they

will ''aspect''.

> > > > >

> > > > > So you mean to say -

> > > > >

> > > > > While Translating BPHS

> > > > >

> > > > > 1)Late Santhanam was unaware about this

simple ''opposition''

> > > > >

> > > > > 2)Late Santhanam for chumma some fun mentioned so during

the

> > > > > translation

> > > > >

> > > > > Either of the above should be ''true'' - else why should

the

> > BPHS

> > > > > translator say as mentioned below.

> > > > >

> > > > > Late Sri R. Santhanam states in his book Deva Keralam

that "

> > the

> > > > > aspect as a rule should be seen in rashi chart only, not in

> > > navamsha

> > > > > and other charts, for aspects emanate only by longitudinal

> > > > > distances " .

> > > > >

> > > > > This will be my last reply for your misquote on Late

> > Santhanam's

> > > > > view on aspects in varga chakras.

> > > > >

> > > > > Regds

> > > > > Pradeep

> > > > >

> > > >

> > >

> >

>

[Guest guest]

Dear Pradeep ji,

 

Thanks for your kind words.

but....

 

Why are you just hovering around that " Kha " still...

 

I strictly say you to Reveal the name of that Friend you are pointing

to.

 

or stop playing this dirty tricks...this dont suit you.

 

 

" " > Pls ask him if this earlier chapter is from BPHS or western.

>

> Dear friend ,you are young.Kindly verify things before you talk.It

is

> not an advise -But always do the homework before we present

something. " " "

 

This is really pity of you Pradeep ji. This is making me feel

that...instead of gathering astrological knowledge from you, we are

learning dirty politics.

 

If i am asking question, i expect as you are astrologer to answer

them only.

A friendlly advice for you too,...you are too elder...

 

Pradeep ji , responding correctly and point to point only makes

others impress , and changing direction of topics makes others to

point fingures.

 

I hope

 

Warm Regards,

 

Tarun

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

, " vijayadas_pradeep "

<vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

>

> Dear Shri Tarun

>

> I do not want to tell anything.I can only make a sleeping person

> awake not a pretender.

>

> Neither i do what is longitudinal nor i know how to draw varga

charts

> as proposed by your group.Neither does Late Santhanam.

>

> For your kind information it is not western.Ask your friend who

gave

> you kha what is Sphuta.

>

> Then show him the following -

>

> " 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. "

>

> Pls ask him if this earlier chapter is from BPHS or western.

>

> Dear friend ,you are young.Kindly verify things before you talk.It

is

> not an advise -But always do the homework before we present

something.

>

> Regds

> Pradeep

>

>

> , " Tarun " <tarun.virgo@> wrote:

> >

> > Dear Pradeep ji

> >

> > u said -

> >

> > > Late Sri R. Santhanam states in his book Deva Keralam that " the

> > > aspect as a rule should be seen in rashi chart only, not in

> navamsha

> > > and other charts, for aspects emanate only by longitudinal

> > > distances " .

> >

> > Can u tell me what are longitudinal aspects ???

> >

> > i hoep they are the same as in western astrology ( 30,45, 60 ,

90 ,

> > 120 , 135, 150 , 180) and minor aspects like 36 , 72 etc.)

> >

> > Do u know how varga charts are made...how D-9 is made. if yes

then

> > you yourself disagree with your views.

> >

> > late santhanam did not mention of Pluto in BPHS..but he has used

in

> > artcile as quoted by Prafulla ji. so what does it imply? can we

say

> > that - Late Santhnam was against using Pluto - as his BPHS

> > translation talks only for 9 grahas

> >

> > I hope you will reply to each of my line asked. without skipping

> > anything.

> >

> > Warm Regards,

> >

> > Tarun

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > , " Prafulla Gang " <jyotish@>

> > wrote:

> > >

> > > Dear Shri Pradeep ji

> > >

> > >

> > > Now you mean to say that - opposition of planets in D chakra

will

> > > affect without aspects? how? guru in lagan in D9 and venus in

7th

> in

> > > D9 - how will they affect together, without considering this

> > > association through aspects.

> > >

> > > You again twisted.

> > >

> > > I asked you one basic thing. If you do not approve late

> Santhanam's

> > D

> > > chakra interpretation model - then why are you referring his one

> > > statement on aspects in BPHS (overlooking his own case studies

in

> > > TOA). Do you mean to say that since you accept his one

statement

> on

> > > aspects, do you accept this theory on D chakra (if they exist,

> > whether

> > > combination works in D chakra etc). If his D chakra theory is

not

> > > accepted by you, then is it not selective and misquote.

> > >

> > > The contention is not only on Aspects, but on the existence of D

> > > chakra itself.

> > >

> > > Or I understand now that - you have agreed that - D chakra

exists,

> > > Combinations can be considered in D charts.

> > >

> > > If you are rejecting his D chakra opinion - then please do not

> quote

> > > him for aspects, without reading his articles and case studies -

 

> > which

> > > are available in public domain. It will be injustice with

learned

> > > soul. Forget about us, but do respect a learned soul.

> > >

> > > regards / Prafulla

> > >

> > >

> > > , " vijayadas_pradeep "

> > > <vijayadas_pradeep@> wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Dear Prafulla ji

> > > >

> > > > Every ''Navamsha chart'' will have atleast one opposition.If

> they

> > > > are in opposition they should ''aspect'' as per you.Also as

per

> > you

> > > > Late Santhanam too felt ,if in opposition they

will ''aspect''.

> > > >

> > > > So you mean to say -

> > > >

> > > > While Translating BPHS

> > > >

> > > > 1)Late Santhanam was unaware about this simple ''opposition''

> > > >

> > > > 2)Late Santhanam for chumma some fun mentioned so during the

> > > > translation

> > > >

> > > > Either of the above should be ''true'' - else why should the

> BPHS

> > > > translator say as mentioned below.

> > > >

> > > > Late Sri R. Santhanam states in his book Deva Keralam that "

> the

> > > > aspect as a rule should be seen in rashi chart only, not in

> > navamsha

> > > > and other charts, for aspects emanate only by longitudinal

> > > > distances " .

> > > >

> > > > This will be my last reply for your misquote on Late

> Santhanam's

> > > > view on aspects in varga chakras.

> > > >

> > > > Regds

> > > > Pradeep

> > > >

> > >

> >

>

[Guest guest]

Dear members,

I feel the discussion has taken an ugly turn. It is

not going to serve our purpose of coming to the

conclusion that one should use aspect in varga or not.

I have struck a shlok XXI chapter XVI on Satrijataka

in Jatak Parijat by Vaidhanatha while writing a write

up on Marital discord, separation and divorce and

planets.

It states that " when 7th house in Navamsha belong to

Mars and aspected by Saturn, she will have diseases of

womb " So aspect in varga has been in use in classics

also, particularly Navamsha.

 

--- vijayadas_pradeep <vijayadas_pradeep

wrote:

 

> Dear Bhaskar ji

>

> Kindly leave me alone.I just replied to a mail from

> Prafulla ji.

>

> Regds

> Pradeep

>

> , " Bhaskar "

> <bhaskar_jyotish

> wrote:

> >

> > Dear Shri Pradeepji,

> >

> > Again the same thing has been started.

> > You are quoting one side of Shri Santhanamji,

> > whereas I have already priovided few references

> from his

> > own publications, in the previous part of the

> thread, where

> > he has clearly used aspects in vargas, and so has

> BV Ramanji

> > and so has Mr. KN rao. And I have provided proof

> from all these

> > authors publications. So who has done more reading

> actually among

> > the members present here ?

> >

> > Regardless of the proofs which I have given, where

> all

> > these authors have used aspects in Vargas,

> > If You notice all my messages, posts, I have

> nowhere

> > mentioned that they were right and now here

> mentioned that

> > they were wrong.

> >

> > So what does that mean ?

> >

> > It means that I am just following their

> commentaries and

> > explanations without any bias in my mind, and

> without

> > any pre-set thinking'that they are wrong or right.

> >

> > And thats how we are all supposed to behave.

> >

> > And those who say that they are wrong,

> > have to prove this conclusively with their

> logic-tarka-

> > pramana, or else just stay quiet, like we do.

> >

> > regards,

> > Bhaskar.

> >

> >

> > -- In ,

> " vijayadas_pradeep "

> > <vijayadas_pradeep@> wrote:

> > >

> > > Dear Shri Tarun

> > >

> > > I do not want to tell anything.I can only make a

> sleeping person

> > > awake not a pretender.

> > >

> > > Neither i do what is longitudinal nor i know how

> to draw varga

> charts

> > > as proposed by your group.Neither does Late

> Santhanam.

> > >

> > > For your kind information it is not western.Ask

> your friend who

> gave

> > > you kha what is Sphuta.

> > >

> > > Then show him the following -

> > >

> > > " 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. "

> > >

> > > Pls ask him if this earlier chapter is from BPHS

> or western.

> > >

> > > Dear friend ,you are young.Kindly verify things

> before you

> talk.It is

> > > not an advise -But always do the homework before

> we present

> something.

> > >

> > > Regds

> > > Pradeep

> > >

> > >

> > > , " Tarun "

> <tarun.virgo@> wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Dear Pradeep ji

> > > >

> > > > u said -

> > > >

> > > > > Late Sri R. Santhanam states in his book

> Deva Keralam that "

> the

> > > > > aspect as a rule should be seen in rashi

> chart only, not in

> > > navamsha

> > > > > and other charts, for aspects emanate only

> by longitudinal

> > > > > distances " .

> > > >

> > > > Can u tell me what are longitudinal aspects

> ???

> > > >

> > > > i hoep they are the same as in western

> astrology ( 30,45, 60 ,

> 90 ,

> > > > 120 , 135, 150 , 180) and minor aspects like

> 36 , 72 etc.)

> > > >

> > > > Do u know how varga charts are made...how D-9

> is made. if yes

> then

> > > > you yourself disagree with your views.

> > > >

> > > > late santhanam did not mention of Pluto in

> BPHS..but he has

> used in

> > > > artcile as quoted by Prafulla ji. so what does

> it imply? can we

> say

> > > > that - Late Santhnam was against using Pluto -

> as his BPHS

> > > > translation talks only for 9 grahas

> > > >

> > > > I hope you will reply to each of my line

> asked. without

> skipping

> > > > anything.

> > > >

> > > > Warm Regards,

> > > >

> > > > Tarun

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > , " Prafulla

> Gang " <jyotish@>

> > > > wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > > Dear Shri Pradeep ji

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > Now you mean to say that - opposition of

> planets in D chakra

> will

> > > > > affect without aspects? how? guru in lagan

> in D9 and venus in

> 7th

> > > in

> > > > > D9 - how will they affect together, without

> considering this

> > > > > association through aspects.

> > > > >

> > > > > You again twisted.

> > > > >

> > > > > I asked you one basic thing. If you do not

> approve late

> > > Santhanam's

> > > > D

> > > > > chakra interpretation model - then why are

> you referring his

> one

> > > > > statement on aspects in BPHS (overlooking

> his own case

> studies in

> > > > > TOA). Do you mean to say that since you

> accept his one

> statement

> > > on

> > > > > aspects, do you accept this theory on D

> chakra (if they

> exist,

> > > > whether

> > > > > combination works in D chakra etc). If his D

> chakra theory is

> not

> > > > > accepted by you, then is it not selective

> and misquote.

> > > > >

> > > > > The contention is not only on Aspects, but

> on the existence

> of D

> > > > > chakra itself.

> > > > >

> > > > > Or I understand now that - you have agreed

> that - D chakra

> exists,

> > > > > Combinations can be considered in D charts.

> > > > >

> > > > > If you are rejecting his D chakra opinion -

> then please do

> not

> > > quote

> > > > > him for aspects, without reading his

> articles and case

> studies -

> > > > which

> > > > > are available in public domain. It will be

> injustice with

> learned

> > > > > soul. Forget about us, but do respect a

> learned soul.

> > > > >

> > > > > regards / Prafulla

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > ,

> " vijayadas_pradeep "

> > > > > <vijayadas_pradeep@> wrote:

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Dear Prafulla ji

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Every ''Navamsha chart'' will have atleast

> one

> opposition.If

> > > they

> > > > > > are in opposition they should ''aspect''

> as per you.Also as

> per

> > > > you

> > > > > > Late Santhanam too felt ,if in opposition

> they

> will ''aspect''.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > So you mean to say -

> > > > > >

> > > > > > While Translating BPHS

> > > > > >

> > > > > > 1)Late Santhanam was unaware about this

> simple ''opposition''

> > > > > >

> > > > > > 2)Late Santhanam for chumma some fun

> mentioned so during

> the

> > > > > > translation

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Either of the above should be ''true'' -

> else why should

> the

> > > BPHS

> > > > > > translator say as mentioned below.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Late Sri R. Santhanam states in his book

> Deva Keralam

> that "

> > > the

> > > > > > aspect as a rule should be seen in rashi

> chart only, not in

> > > > navamsha

> > > > > > and other charts, for aspects emanate only

> by longitudinal

> > > > > > distances " .

> > > > > >

> > > > > > This will be my last reply for your

> misquote on Late

> > > Santhanam's

> > > > > > view on aspects in varga chakras.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Regds

> > > > > > Pradeep

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > >

>

[Guest guest]

Dear Kursija ji

 

This was discussed.Kaujesthamshe.

There is one technique where the navamshas are counted.For example

the 7th amsha of Lagna.If this amsha falls in the kshethra of Mars

and is aspected by saturn the said yoga results.Dashadhyayi explains

Kaujesthamshe.

 

Aspects are always w.r to Rashi.All the confusion arises as the sign

corresponding to 7th amsha of Lagna is same as 7th house in

navamsha.When you think of Karakamsha examples too,consideration from

rashi or navamshas corresponds to the same sign.But

Paparkshe,Bhrigwonkaraka Varge etc are helping us.

 

If you see the example of Queen Elisaeth - it is pretty clear.We will

not get may examples out of coincidence - do we.

 

Sages do not mention anything without a purpose.So is the case with

Swamsha/Navamsha Lagna Rajayoga.We have seen a false interpretation

of this yoga and we have seen many individuals coming and saying why

i am not a Raja.We will take up this exercise and see why this

interpretation has failed.Sage is correct.Our interpretation matters.

 

My examples are only for the members who are curious to know the

Truth.Others can ignore.

 

Regds

Pradeep

 

, " S.C. Kursija " <sckursija

wrote:

>

> Dear members,

> I feel the discussion has taken an ugly turn. It is

> not going to serve our purpose of coming to the

> conclusion that one should use aspect in varga or not.

> I have struck a shlok XXI chapter XVI on Satrijataka

> in Jatak Parijat by Vaidhanatha while writing a write

> up on Marital discord, separation and divorce and

> planets.

> It states that " when 7th house in Navamsha belong to

> Mars and aspected by Saturn, she will have diseases of

> womb " So aspect in varga has been in use in classics

> also, particularly Navamsha.

>

> --- vijayadas_pradeep <vijayadas_pradeep

> wrote:

>

> > Dear Bhaskar ji

> >

> > Kindly leave me alone.I just replied to a mail from

> > Prafulla ji.

> >

> > Regds

> > Pradeep

> >

> > , " Bhaskar "

> > <bhaskar_jyotish@>

> > wrote:

> > >

> > > Dear Shri Pradeepji,

> > >

> > > Again the same thing has been started.

> > > You are quoting one side of Shri Santhanamji,

> > > whereas I have already priovided few references

> > from his

> > > own publications, in the previous part of the

> > thread, where

> > > he has clearly used aspects in vargas, and so has

> > BV Ramanji

> > > and so has Mr. KN rao. And I have provided proof

> > from all these

> > > authors publications. So who has done more reading

> > actually among

> > > the members present here ?

> > >

> > > Regardless of the proofs which I have given, where

> > all

> > > these authors have used aspects in Vargas,

> > > If You notice all my messages, posts, I have

> > nowhere

> > > mentioned that they were right and now here

> > mentioned that

> > > they were wrong.

> > >

> > > So what does that mean ?

> > >

> > > It means that I am just following their

> > commentaries and

> > > explanations without any bias in my mind, and

> > without

> > > any pre-set thinking'that they are wrong or right.

> > >

> > > And thats how we are all supposed to behave.

> > >

> > > And those who say that they are wrong,

> > > have to prove this conclusively with their

> > logic-tarka-

> > > pramana, or else just stay quiet, like we do.

> > >

> > > regards,

> > > Bhaskar.

> > >

> > >

> > > -- In ,

> > " vijayadas_pradeep "

> > > <vijayadas_pradeep@> wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Dear Shri Tarun

> > > >

> > > > I do not want to tell anything.I can only make a

> > sleeping person

> > > > awake not a pretender.

> > > >

> > > > Neither i do what is longitudinal nor i know how

> > to draw varga

> > charts

> > > > as proposed by your group.Neither does Late

> > Santhanam.

> > > >

> > > > For your kind information it is not western.Ask

> > your friend who

> > gave

> > > > you kha what is Sphuta.

> > > >

> > > > Then show him the following -

> > > >

> > > > " 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. "

> > > >

> > > > Pls ask him if this earlier chapter is from BPHS

> > or western.

> > > >

> > > > Dear friend ,you are young.Kindly verify things

> > before you

> > talk.It is

> > > > not an advise -But always do the homework before

> > we present

> > something.

> > > >

> > > > Regds

> > > > Pradeep

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > , " Tarun "

> > <tarun.virgo@> wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > > Dear Pradeep ji

> > > > >

> > > > > u said -

> > > > >

> > > > > > Late Sri R. Santhanam states in his book

> > Deva Keralam that "

> > the

> > > > > > aspect as a rule should be seen in rashi

> > chart only, not in

> > > > navamsha

> > > > > > and other charts, for aspects emanate only

> > by longitudinal

> > > > > > distances " .

> > > > >

> > > > > Can u tell me what are longitudinal aspects

> > ???

> > > > >

> > > > > i hoep they are the same as in western

> > astrology ( 30,45, 60 ,

> > 90 ,

> > > > > 120 , 135, 150 , 180) and minor aspects like

> > 36 , 72 etc.)

> > > > >

> > > > > Do u know how varga charts are made...how D-9

> > is made. if yes

> > then

> > > > > you yourself disagree with your views.

> > > > >

> > > > > late santhanam did not mention of Pluto in

> > BPHS..but he has

> > used in

> > > > > artcile as quoted by Prafulla ji. so what does

> > it imply? can we

> > say

> > > > > that - Late Santhnam was against using Pluto -

> > as his BPHS

> > > > > translation talks only for 9 grahas

> > > > >

> > > > > I hope you will reply to each of my line

> > asked. without

> > skipping

> > > > > anything.

> > > > >

> > > > > Warm Regards,

> > > > >

> > > > > Tarun

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > , " Prafulla

> > Gang " <jyotish@>

> > > > > wrote:

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Dear Shri Pradeep ji

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Now you mean to say that - opposition of

> > planets in D chakra

> > will

> > > > > > affect without aspects? how? guru in lagan

> > in D9 and venus in

> > 7th

> > > > in

> > > > > > D9 - how will they affect together, without

> > considering this

> > > > > > association through aspects.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > You again twisted.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > I asked you one basic thing. If you do not

> > approve late

> > > > Santhanam's

> > > > > D

> > > > > > chakra interpretation model - then why are

> > you referring his

> > one

> > > > > > statement on aspects in BPHS (overlooking

> > his own case

> > studies in

> > > > > > TOA). Do you mean to say that since you

> > accept his one

> > statement

> > > > on

> > > > > > aspects, do you accept this theory on D

> > chakra (if they

> > exist,

> > > > > whether

> > > > > > combination works in D chakra etc). If his D

> > chakra theory is

> > not

> > > > > > accepted by you, then is it not selective

> > and misquote.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > The contention is not only on Aspects, but

> > on the existence

> > of D

> > > > > > chakra itself.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Or I understand now that - you have agreed

> > that - D chakra

> > exists,

> > > > > > Combinations can be considered in D charts.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > If you are rejecting his D chakra opinion -

> > then please do

> > not

> > > > quote

> > > > > > him for aspects, without reading his

> > articles and case

> > studies -

> > > > > which

> > > > > > are available in public domain. It will be

> > injustice with

> > learned

> > > > > > soul. Forget about us, but do respect a

> > learned soul.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > regards / Prafulla

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > > ,

> > " vijayadas_pradeep "

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

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Dear Prafulla ji

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Every ''Navamsha chart'' will have atleast

> > one

> > opposition.If

> > > > they

> > > > > > > are in opposition they should ''aspect''

> > as per you.Also as

> > per

> > > > > you

> > > > > > > Late Santhanam too felt ,if in opposition

> > they

> > will ''aspect''.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > So you mean to say -

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > While Translating BPHS

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > 1)Late Santhanam was unaware about this

> > simple ''opposition''

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > 2)Late Santhanam for chumma some fun

> > mentioned so during

> > the

> > > > > > > translation

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Either of the above should be ''true'' -

> > else why should

> > the

> > > > BPHS

> > > > > > > translator say as mentioned below.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Late Sri R. Santhanam states in his book

> > Deva Keralam

> > that "

> > > > the

> > > > > > > aspect as a rule should be seen in rashi

> > chart only, not in

> > > > > navamsha

> > > > > > > and other charts, for aspects emanate only

> > by longitudinal

> > > > > > > distances " .

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > This will be my last reply for your

> > misquote on Late

> > > > Santhanam's

> > > > > > > view on aspects in varga chakras.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Regds

> > > > > > > Pradeep

> > > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

[Guest guest]

Dear Mr. Pradeep,

You are absolutely right that aspecting of planets are not applied in Vargas

at all except in Janam or Chandra laganas but no one will try to accept it here

because others are adamant on their fake egoism.So why do you waste your energy

and time on baseless matter?Plz leave this topic and let them live in fools

paradise.

 

Ratnaakar

 

 

vijayadas_pradeep <vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

Dear Kursija ji

 

This was discussed.Kaujesthamshe.

There is one technique where the navamshas are counted.For example

the 7th amsha of Lagna.If this amsha falls in the kshethra of Mars

and is aspected by saturn the said yoga results.Dashadhyayi explains

Kaujesthamshe.

 

Aspects are always w.r to Rashi.All the confusion arises as the sign

corresponding to 7th amsha of Lagna is same as 7th house in

navamsha.When you think of Karakamsha examples too,consideration from

rashi or navamshas corresponds to the same sign.But

Paparkshe,Bhrigwonkaraka Varge etc are helping us.

 

If you see the example of Queen Elisaeth - it is pretty clear.We will

not get may examples out of coincidence - do we.

 

Sages do not mention anything without a purpose.So is the case with

Swamsha/Navamsha Lagna Rajayoga.We have seen a false interpretation

of this yoga and we have seen many individuals coming and saying why

i am not a Raja.We will take up this exercise and see why this

interpretation has failed.Sage is correct.Our interpretation matters.

 

My examples are only for the members who are curious to know the

Truth.Others can ignore.

 

Regds

Pradeep

 

, " S.C. Kursija "

wrote:

>

> Dear members,

> I feel the discussion has taken an ugly turn. It is

> not going to serve our purpose of coming to the

> conclusion that one should use aspect in varga or not.

> I have struck a shlok XXI chapter XVI on Satrijataka

> in Jatak Parijat by Vaidhanatha while writing a write

> up on Marital discord, separation and divorce and

> planets.

> It states that " when 7th house in Navamsha belong to

> Mars and aspected by Saturn, she will have diseases of

> womb " So aspect in varga has been in use in classics

> also, particularly Navamsha.

>

> --- vijayadas_pradeep

> wrote:

>

> > Dear Bhaskar ji

> >

> > Kindly leave me alone.I just replied to a mail from

> > Prafulla ji.

> >

> > Regds

> > Pradeep

> >

> > , " Bhaskar "

> >

> > wrote:

> > >

> > > Dear Shri Pradeepji,

> > >

> > > Again the same thing has been started.

> > > You are quoting one side of Shri Santhanamji,

> > > whereas I have already priovided few references

> > from his

> > > own publications, in the previous part of the

> > thread, where

> > > he has clearly used aspects in vargas, and so has

> > BV Ramanji

> > > and so has Mr. KN rao. And I have provided proof

> > from all these

> > > authors publications. So who has done more reading

> > actually among

> > > the members present here ?

> > >

> > > Regardless of the proofs which I have given, where

> > all

> > > these authors have used aspects in Vargas,

> > > If You notice all my messages, posts, I have

> > nowhere

> > > mentioned that they were right and now here

> > mentioned that

> > > they were wrong.

> > >

> > > So what does that mean ?

> > >

> > > It means that I am just following their

> > commentaries and

> > > explanations without any bias in my mind, and

> > without

> > > any pre-set thinking'that they are wrong or right.

> > >

> > > And thats how we are all supposed to behave.

> > >

> > > And those who say that they are wrong,

> > > have to prove this conclusively with their

> > logic-tarka-

> > > pramana, or else just stay quiet, like we do.

> > >

> > > regards,

> > > Bhaskar.

> > >

> > >

> > > -- In ,

> > " vijayadas_pradeep "

> > > wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Dear Shri Tarun

> > > >

> > > > I do not want to tell anything.I can only make a

> > sleeping person

> > > > awake not a pretender.

> > > >

> > > > Neither i do what is longitudinal nor i know how

> > to draw varga

> > charts

> > > > as proposed by your group.Neither does Late

> > Santhanam.

> > > >

> > > > For your kind information it is not western.Ask

> > your friend who

> > gave

> > > > you kha what is Sphuta.

> > > >

> > > > Then show him the following -

> > > >

> > > > " 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. "

> > > >

> > > > Pls ask him if this earlier chapter is from BPHS

> > or western.

> > > >

> > > > Dear friend ,you are young.Kindly verify things

> > before you

> > talk.It is

> > > > not an advise -But always do the homework before

> > we present

> > something.

> > > >

> > > > Regds

> > > > Pradeep

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > , " Tarun "

> > wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > > Dear Pradeep ji

> > > > >

> > > > > u said -

> > > > >

> > > > > > Late Sri R. Santhanam states in his book

> > Deva Keralam that "

> > the

> > > > > > aspect as a rule should be seen in rashi

> > chart only, not in

> > > > navamsha

> > > > > > and other charts, for aspects emanate only

> > by longitudinal

> > > > > > distances " .

> > > > >

> > > > > Can u tell me what are longitudinal aspects

> > ???

> > > > >

> > > > > i hoep they are the same as in western

> > astrology ( 30,45, 60 ,

> > 90 ,

> > > > > 120 , 135, 150 , 180) and minor aspects like

> > 36 , 72 etc.)

> > > > >

> > > > > Do u know how varga charts are made...how D-9

> > is made. if yes

> > then

> > > > > you yourself disagree with your views.

> > > > >

> > > > > late santhanam did not mention of Pluto in

> > BPHS..but he has

> > used in

> > > > > artcile as quoted by Prafulla ji. so what does

> > it imply? can we

> > say

> > > > > that - Late Santhnam was against using Pluto -

> > as his BPHS

> > > > > translation talks only for 9 grahas

> > > > >

> > > > > I hope you will reply to each of my line

> > asked. without

> > skipping

> > > > > anything.

> > > > >

> > > > > Warm Regards,

> > > > >

> > > > > Tarun

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > , " Prafulla

> > Gang "

> > > > > wrote:

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Dear Shri Pradeep ji

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Now you mean to say that - opposition of

> > planets in D chakra

> > will

> > > > > > affect without aspects? how? guru in lagan

> > in D9 and venus in

> > 7th

> > > > in

> > > > > > D9 - how will they affect together, without

> > considering this

> > > > > > association through aspects.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > You again twisted.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > I asked you one basic thing. If you do not

> > approve late

> > > > Santhanam's

> > > > > D

> > > > > > chakra interpretation model - then why are

> > you referring his

> > one

> > > > > > statement on aspects in BPHS (overlooking

> > his own case

> > studies in

> > > > > > TOA). Do you mean to say that since you

> > accept his one

> > statement

> > > > on

> > > > > > aspects, do you accept this theory on D

> > chakra (if they

> > exist,

> > > > > whether

> > > > > > combination works in D chakra etc). If his D

> > chakra theory is

> > not

> > > > > > accepted by you, then is it not selective

> > and misquote.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > The contention is not only on Aspects, but

> > on the existence

> > of D

> > > > > > chakra itself.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Or I understand now that - you have agreed

> > that - D chakra

> > exists,

> > > > > > Combinations can be considered in D charts.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > If you are rejecting his D chakra opinion -

> > then please do

> > not

> > > > quote

> > > > > > him for aspects, without reading his

> > articles and case

> > studies -

> > > > > which

> > > > > > are available in public domain. It will be

> > injustice with

> > learned

> > > > > > soul. Forget about us, but do respect a

> > learned soul.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > regards / Prafulla

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > > ,

> > " vijayadas_pradeep "

> > > > > > wrote:

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Dear Prafulla ji

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Every ''Navamsha chart'' will have atleast

> > one

> > opposition.If

> > > > they

> > > > > > > are in opposition they should ''aspect''

> > as per you.Also as

> > per

> > > > > you

> > > > > > > Late Santhanam too felt ,if in opposition

> > they

> > will ''aspect''.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > So you mean to say -

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > While Translating BPHS

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > 1)Late Santhanam was unaware about this

> > simple ''opposition''

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > 2)Late Santhanam for chumma some fun

> > mentioned so during

> > the

> > > > > > > translation

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Either of the above should be ''true'' -

> > else why should

> > the

> > > > BPHS

> > > > > > > translator say as mentioned below.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Late Sri R. Santhanam states in his book

> > Deva Keralam

> > that "

> > > > the

> > > > > > > aspect as a rule should be seen in rashi

> > chart only, not in

> > > > > navamsha

> > > > > > > and other charts, for aspects emanate only

> > by longitudinal

> > > > > > > distances " .

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > This will be my last reply for your

> > misquote on Late

> > > > Santhanam's

> > > > > > > view on aspects in varga chakras.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Regds

> > > > > > > Pradeep

> > > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

[Guest guest]

Dear Ratnakaar,

 

If Navamsha Chart is also one of the Vargas, then

aspects have been observed by Santhanam,BV Raman

and KN Rao,all of these three, which I have proved

through quoting the relevant page numbers from their

books, and not not once but many times,

 

I request you to comment on their use of aspects

while charting example charts and explaining to the

readers in their books.

 

Why would they do so, if there was no base

or substance in this ?

 

regards,

Bhaskar.

 

 

, Ratnaakar <namra_nivedan wrote:

>

> Dear Mr. Pradeep,

> You are absolutely right that aspecting of planets are not applied

in Vargas at all except in Janam or Chandra laganas but no one will

try to accept it here because others are adamant on their fake

egoism.So why do you waste your energy and time on baseless matter?Plz

leave this topic and let them live in fools paradise.

>

> Ratnaakar

>

>

> vijayadas_pradeep <vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> Dear Kursija ji

>

> This was discussed.Kaujesthamshe.

> There is one technique where the navamshas are counted.For example

> the 7th amsha of Lagna.If this amsha falls in the kshethra of Mars

> and is aspected by saturn the said yoga results.Dashadhyayi explains

> Kaujesthamshe.

>

> Aspects are always w.r to Rashi.All the confusion arises as the sign

> corresponding to 7th amsha of Lagna is same as 7th house in

> navamsha.When you think of Karakamsha examples too,consideration from

> rashi or navamshas corresponds to the same sign.But

> Paparkshe,Bhrigwonkaraka Varge etc are helping us.

>

> If you see the example of Queen Elisaeth - it is pretty clear.We will

> not get may examples out of coincidence - do we.

>

> Sages do not mention anything without a purpose.So is the case with

> Swamsha/Navamsha Lagna Rajayoga.We have seen a false interpretation

> of this yoga and we have seen many individuals coming and saying why

> i am not a Raja.We will take up this exercise and see why this

> interpretation has failed.Sage is correct.Our interpretation matters.

>

> My examples are only for the members who are curious to know the

> Truth.Others can ignore.

>

> Regds

> Pradeep

>

> , " S.C. Kursija "

> wrote:

> >

> > Dear members,

> > I feel the discussion has taken an ugly turn. It is

> > not going to serve our purpose of coming to the

> > conclusion that one should use aspect in varga or not.

> > I have struck a shlok XXI chapter XVI on Satrijataka

> > in Jatak Parijat by Vaidhanatha while writing a write

> > up on Marital discord, separation and divorce and

> > planets.

> > It states that " when 7th house in Navamsha belong to

> > Mars and aspected by Saturn, she will have diseases of

> > womb " So aspect in varga has been in use in classics

> > also, particularly Navamsha.

> >

> > --- vijayadas_pradeep

> > wrote:

> >

> > > Dear Bhaskar ji

> > >

> > > Kindly leave me alone.I just replied to a mail from

> > > Prafulla ji.

> > >

> > > Regds

> > > Pradeep

> > >

> > > , " Bhaskar "

> > >

> > > wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Dear Shri Pradeepji,

> > > >

> > > > Again the same thing has been started.

> > > > You are quoting one side of Shri Santhanamji,

> > > > whereas I have already priovided few references

> > > from his

> > > > own publications, in the previous part of the

> > > thread, where

> > > > he has clearly used aspects in vargas, and so has

> > > BV Ramanji

> > > > and so has Mr. KN rao. And I have provided proof

> > > from all these

> > > > authors publications. So who has done more reading

> > > actually among

> > > > the members present here ?

> > > >

> > > > Regardless of the proofs which I have given, where

> > > all

> > > > these authors have used aspects in Vargas,

> > > > If You notice all my messages, posts, I have

> > > nowhere

> > > > mentioned that they were right and now here

> > > mentioned that

> > > > they were wrong.

> > > >

> > > > So what does that mean ?

> > > >

> > > > It means that I am just following their

> > > commentaries and

> > > > explanations without any bias in my mind, and

> > > without

> > > > any pre-set thinking'that they are wrong or right.

> > > >

> > > > And thats how we are all supposed to behave.

> > > >

> > > > And those who say that they are wrong,

> > > > have to prove this conclusively with their

> > > logic-tarka-

> > > > pramana, or else just stay quiet, like we do.

> > > >

> > > > regards,

> > > > Bhaskar.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > -- In ,

> > > " vijayadas_pradeep "

> > > > wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > > Dear Shri Tarun

> > > > >

> > > > > I do not want to tell anything.I can only make a

> > > sleeping person

> > > > > awake not a pretender.

> > > > >

> > > > > Neither i do what is longitudinal nor i know how

> > > to draw varga

> > > charts

> > > > > as proposed by your group.Neither does Late

> > > Santhanam.

> > > > >

> > > > > For your kind information it is not western.Ask

> > > your friend who

> > > gave

> > > > > you kha what is Sphuta.

> > > > >

> > > > > Then show him the following -

> > > > >

> > > > > " 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. "

> > > > >

> > > > > Pls ask him if this earlier chapter is from BPHS

> > > or western.

> > > > >

> > > > > Dear friend ,you are young.Kindly verify things

> > > before you

> > > talk.It is

> > > > > not an advise -But always do the homework before

> > > we present

> > > something.

> > > > >

> > > > > Regds

> > > > > Pradeep

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > , " Tarun "

> > > wrote:

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Dear Pradeep ji

> > > > > >

> > > > > > u said -

> > > > > >

> > > > > > > Late Sri R. Santhanam states in his book

> > > Deva Keralam that "

> > > the

> > > > > > > aspect as a rule should be seen in rashi

> > > chart only, not in

> > > > > navamsha

> > > > > > > and other charts, for aspects emanate only

> > > by longitudinal

> > > > > > > distances " .

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Can u tell me what are longitudinal aspects

> > > ???

> > > > > >

> > > > > > i hoep they are the same as in western

> > > astrology ( 30,45, 60 ,

> > > 90 ,

> > > > > > 120 , 135, 150 , 180) and minor aspects like

> > > 36 , 72 etc.)

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Do u know how varga charts are made...how D-9

> > > is made. if yes

> > > then

> > > > > > you yourself disagree with your views.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > late santhanam did not mention of Pluto in

> > > BPHS..but he has

> > > used in

> > > > > > artcile as quoted by Prafulla ji. so what does

> > > it imply? can we

> > > say

> > > > > > that - Late Santhnam was against using Pluto -

> > > as his BPHS

> > > > > > translation talks only for 9 grahas

> > > > > >

> > > > > > I hope you will reply to each of my line

> > > asked. without

> > > skipping

> > > > > > anything.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Warm Regards,

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Tarun

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > > , " Prafulla

> > > Gang "

> > > > > > wrote:

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Dear Shri Pradeep ji

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Now you mean to say that - opposition of

> > > planets in D chakra

> > > will

> > > > > > > affect without aspects? how? guru in lagan

> > > in D9 and venus in

> > > 7th

> > > > > in

> > > > > > > D9 - how will they affect together, without

> > > considering this

> > > > > > > association through aspects.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > You again twisted.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > I asked you one basic thing. If you do not

> > > approve late

> > > > > Santhanam's

> > > > > > D

> > > > > > > chakra interpretation model - then why are

> > > you referring his

> > > one

> > > > > > > statement on aspects in BPHS (overlooking

> > > his own case

> > > studies in

> > > > > > > TOA). Do you mean to say that since you

> > > accept his one

> > > statement

> > > > > on

> > > > > > > aspects, do you accept this theory on D

> > > chakra (if they

> > > exist,

> > > > > > whether

> > > > > > > combination works in D chakra etc). If his D

> > > chakra theory is

> > > not

> > > > > > > accepted by you, then is it not selective

> > > and misquote.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > The contention is not only on Aspects, but

> > > on the existence

> > > of D

> > > > > > > chakra itself.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Or I understand now that - you have agreed

> > > that - D chakra

> > > exists,

> > > > > > > Combinations can be considered in D charts.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > If you are rejecting his D chakra opinion -

> > > then please do

> > > not

> > > > > quote

> > > > > > > him for aspects, without reading his

> > > articles and case

> > > studies -

> > > > > > which

> > > > > > > are available in public domain. It will be

> > > injustice with

> > > learned

> > > > > > > soul. Forget about us, but do respect a

> > > learned soul.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > regards / Prafulla

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > ,

> > > " vijayadas_pradeep "

> > > > > > > wrote:

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Dear Prafulla ji

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Every ''Navamsha chart'' will have atleast

> > > one

> > > opposition.If

> > > > > they

> > > > > > > > are in opposition they should ''aspect''

> > > as per you.Also as

> > > per

> > > > > > you

> > > > > > > > Late Santhanam too felt ,if in opposition

> > > they

> > > will ''aspect''.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > So you mean to say -

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > While Translating BPHS

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > 1)Late Santhanam was unaware about this

> > > simple ''opposition''

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > 2)Late Santhanam for chumma some fun

> > > mentioned so during

> > > the

> > > > > > > > translation

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Either of the above should be ''true'' -

> > > else why should

> > > the

> > > > > BPHS

> > > > > > > > translator say as mentioned below.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Late Sri R. Santhanam states in his book

> > > Deva Keralam

> > > that "

> > > > > the

> > > > > > > > aspect as a rule should be seen in rashi

> > > chart only, not in

> > > > > > navamsha

> > > > > > > > and other charts, for aspects emanate only

> > > by longitudinal

> > > > > > > > distances " .

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > This will be my last reply for your

> > > misquote on Late

> > > > > Santhanam's

> > > > > > > > view on aspects in varga chakras.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Regds

> > > > > > > > Pradeep

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

[Guest guest]

Dear all,

 

Again we are coming back to the start of our thread.

The whole story is going to be repeated it seems.

 

I do not cancel or reject the sattement that

amsha is brought back to the Rashi in Rashi

Chart and studied, BUT

 

the other studies also cannot be categorically

rejected where Santhanam, KN Rao and BV Raman

have exclusively used aspects even in the Navamsha

Chart and confirmed what they have seen in the Rashi,

or in the characteristiocs of the person.

Were they wrong, and all of them ?

 

KN rao has also used aspects in Vimsamsa. Is he

wrong ? What about LR Chawdhari. I am not even

commenting on him.

 

all these are wrong? Or have they misinterpreted

the shlokas wrongly ?

 

How can we prove that

" I can only interpret the shlokas rightly " AND

" All these do not know proper sanskrit, and have

misinterpreted the shlokas wrongly "

 

Another point-

If I accept that all these people knew that it is

wrong to see aspects from the Navamsha Chart, then

why were they all doing so in their various books

and hundreds of example charts ?

 

The above is a matter of speculation,

and not That one person is

right and all the rest are wrong and

living in a fools paradise.

 

Bhaskar.

 

 

 

 

 

 

, " vijayadas_pradeep "

<vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

>

> Dear Kursija ji

>

> This was discussed.Kaujesthamshe.

> There is one technique where the navamshas are counted.For example

> the 7th amsha of Lagna.If this amsha falls in the kshethra of Mars

> and is aspected by saturn the said yoga results.Dashadhyayi explains

> Kaujesthamshe.

>

> Aspects are always w.r to Rashi.All the confusion arises as the sign

> corresponding to 7th amsha of Lagna is same as 7th house in

> navamsha.When you think of Karakamsha examples too,consideration from

> rashi or navamshas corresponds to the same sign.But

> Paparkshe,Bhrigwonkaraka Varge etc are helping us.

>

> If you see the example of Queen Elisaeth - it is pretty clear.We will

> not get may examples out of coincidence - do we.

>

> Sages do not mention anything without a purpose.So is the case with

> Swamsha/Navamsha Lagna Rajayoga.We have seen a false interpretation

> of this yoga and we have seen many individuals coming and saying why

> i am not a Raja.We will take up this exercise and see why this

> interpretation has failed.Sage is correct.Our interpretation matters.

>

> My examples are only for the members who are curious to know the

> Truth.Others can ignore.

>

> Regds

> Pradeep

>

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

> wrote:

> >

> > Dear members,

> > I feel the discussion has taken an ugly turn. It is

> > not going to serve our purpose of coming to the

> > conclusion that one should use aspect in varga or not.

> > I have struck a shlok XXI chapter XVI on Satrijataka

> > in Jatak Parijat by Vaidhanatha while writing a write

> > up on Marital discord, separation and divorce and

> > planets.

> > It states that " when 7th house in Navamsha belong to

> > Mars and aspected by Saturn, she will have diseases of

> > womb " So aspect in varga has been in use in classics

> > also, particularly Navamsha.

> >

> > --- vijayadas_pradeep <vijayadas_pradeep@>

> > wrote:

> >

> > > Dear Bhaskar ji

> > >

> > > Kindly leave me alone.I just replied to a mail from

> > > Prafulla ji.

> > >

> > > Regds

> > > Pradeep

> > >

> > > , " Bhaskar "

> > > <bhaskar_jyotish@>

> > > wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Dear Shri Pradeepji,

> > > >

> > > > Again the same thing has been started.

> > > > You are quoting one side of Shri Santhanamji,

> > > > whereas I have already priovided few references

> > > from his

> > > > own publications, in the previous part of the

> > > thread, where

> > > > he has clearly used aspects in vargas, and so has

> > > BV Ramanji

> > > > and so has Mr. KN rao. And I have provided proof

> > > from all these

> > > > authors publications. So who has done more reading

> > > actually among

> > > > the members present here ?

> > > >

> > > > Regardless of the proofs which I have given, where

> > > all

> > > > these authors have used aspects in Vargas,

> > > > If You notice all my messages, posts, I have

> > > nowhere

> > > > mentioned that they were right and now here

> > > mentioned that

> > > > they were wrong.

> > > >

> > > > So what does that mean ?

> > > >

> > > > It means that I am just following their

> > > commentaries and

> > > > explanations without any bias in my mind, and

> > > without

> > > > any pre-set thinking'that they are wrong or right.

> > > >

> > > > And thats how we are all supposed to behave.

> > > >

> > > > And those who say that they are wrong,

> > > > have to prove this conclusively with their

> > > logic-tarka-

> > > > pramana, or else just stay quiet, like we do.

> > > >

> > > > regards,

> > > > Bhaskar.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > -- In ,

> > > " vijayadas_pradeep "

> > > > <vijayadas_pradeep@> wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > > Dear Shri Tarun

> > > > >

> > > > > I do not want to tell anything.I can only make a

> > > sleeping person

> > > > > awake not a pretender.

> > > > >

> > > > > Neither i do what is longitudinal nor i know how

> > > to draw varga

> > > charts

> > > > > as proposed by your group.Neither does Late

> > > Santhanam.

> > > > >

> > > > > For your kind information it is not western.Ask

> > > your friend who

> > > gave

> > > > > you kha what is Sphuta.

> > > > >

> > > > > Then show him the following -

> > > > >

> > > > > " 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. "

> > > > >

> > > > > Pls ask him if this earlier chapter is from BPHS

> > > or western.

> > > > >

> > > > > Dear friend ,you are young.Kindly verify things

> > > before you

> > > talk.It is

> > > > > not an advise -But always do the homework before

> > > we present

> > > something.

> > > > >

> > > > > Regds

> > > > > Pradeep

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > , " Tarun "

> > > <tarun.virgo@> wrote:

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Dear Pradeep ji

> > > > > >

> > > > > > u said -

> > > > > >

> > > > > > > Late Sri R. Santhanam states in his book

> > > Deva Keralam that "

> > > the

> > > > > > > aspect as a rule should be seen in rashi

> > > chart only, not in

> > > > > navamsha

> > > > > > > and other charts, for aspects emanate only

> > > by longitudinal

> > > > > > > distances " .

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Can u tell me what are longitudinal aspects

> > > ???

> > > > > >

> > > > > > i hoep they are the same as in western

> > > astrology ( 30,45, 60 ,

> > > 90 ,

> > > > > > 120 , 135, 150 , 180) and minor aspects like

> > > 36 , 72 etc.)

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Do u know how varga charts are made...how D-9

> > > is made. if yes

> > > then

> > > > > > you yourself disagree with your views.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > late santhanam did not mention of Pluto in

> > > BPHS..but he has

> > > used in

> > > > > > artcile as quoted by Prafulla ji. so what does

> > > it imply? can we

> > > say

> > > > > > that - Late Santhnam was against using Pluto -

> > > as his BPHS

> > > > > > translation talks only for 9 grahas

> > > > > >

> > > > > > I hope you will reply to each of my line

> > > asked. without

> > > skipping

> > > > > > anything.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Warm Regards,

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Tarun

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > > , " Prafulla

> > > Gang " <jyotish@>

> > > > > > wrote:

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Dear Shri Pradeep ji

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Now you mean to say that - opposition of

> > > planets in D chakra

> > > will

> > > > > > > affect without aspects? how? guru in lagan

> > > in D9 and venus in

> > > 7th

> > > > > in

> > > > > > > D9 - how will they affect together, without

> > > considering this

> > > > > > > association through aspects.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > You again twisted.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > I asked you one basic thing. If you do not

> > > approve late

> > > > > Santhanam's

> > > > > > D

> > > > > > > chakra interpretation model - then why are

> > > you referring his

> > > one

> > > > > > > statement on aspects in BPHS (overlooking

> > > his own case

> > > studies in

> > > > > > > TOA). Do you mean to say that since you

> > > accept his one

> > > statement

> > > > > on

> > > > > > > aspects, do you accept this theory on D

> > > chakra (if they

> > > exist,

> > > > > > whether

> > > > > > > combination works in D chakra etc). If his D

> > > chakra theory is

> > > not

> > > > > > > accepted by you, then is it not selective

> > > and misquote.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > The contention is not only on Aspects, but

> > > on the existence

> > > of D

> > > > > > > chakra itself.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Or I understand now that - you have agreed

> > > that - D chakra

> > > exists,

> > > > > > > Combinations can be considered in D charts.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > If you are rejecting his D chakra opinion -

> > > then please do

> > > not

> > > > > quote

> > > > > > > him for aspects, without reading his

> > > articles and case

> > > studies -

> > > > > > which

> > > > > > > are available in public domain. It will be

> > > injustice with

> > > learned

> > > > > > > soul. Forget about us, but do respect a

> > > learned soul.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > regards / Prafulla

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > ,

> > > " vijayadas_pradeep "

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

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Dear Prafulla ji

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Every ''Navamsha chart'' will have atleast

> > > one

> > > opposition.If

> > > > > they

> > > > > > > > are in opposition they should ''aspect''

> > > as per you.Also as

> > > per

> > > > > > you

> > > > > > > > Late Santhanam too felt ,if in opposition

> > > they

> > > will ''aspect''.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > So you mean to say -

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > While Translating BPHS

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > 1)Late Santhanam was unaware about this

> > > simple ''opposition''

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > 2)Late Santhanam for chumma some fun

> > > mentioned so during

> > > the

> > > > > > > > translation

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Either of the above should be ''true'' -

> > > else why should

> > > the

> > > > > BPHS

> > > > > > > > translator say as mentioned below.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Late Sri R. Santhanam states in his book

> > > Deva Keralam

> > > that "

> > > > > the

> > > > > > > > aspect as a rule should be seen in rashi

> > > chart only, not in

> > > > > > navamsha

> > > > > > > > and other charts, for aspects emanate only

> > > by longitudinal

> > > > > > > > distances " .

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > This will be my last reply for your

> > > misquote on Late

> > > > > Santhanam's

> > > > > > > > view on aspects in varga chakras.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Regds

> > > > > > > > Pradeep

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

[Guest guest]

Dear Mr.Ratnakar

 

We will be happy if members can atleast study and verify what is being

said before pressing the reply button.Some members are just trying to

irritate and provoke.Some others are trying to behave without any

decency,so that gentle people will start leaving the group.Some

members have already left.

 

Thank you for your concern and views.

 

Regds

Pradeep

 

, Ratnaakar <namra_nivedan wrote:

>

> Dear Mr. Pradeep,

> You are absolutely right that aspecting of planets are not applied

in Vargas at all except in Janam or Chandra laganas but no one will

try to accept it here because others are adamant on their fake

egoism.So why do you waste your energy and time on baseless matter?Plz

leave this topic and let them live in fools paradise.

>

> Ratnaakar

>

>

> vijayadas_pradeep <vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> Dear Kursija ji

>

> This was discussed.Kaujesthamshe.

> There is one technique where the navamshas are counted.For example

> the 7th amsha of Lagna.If this amsha falls in the kshethra of Mars

> and is aspected by saturn the said yoga results.Dashadhyayi explains

> Kaujesthamshe.

>

> Aspects are always w.r to Rashi.All the confusion arises as the sign

> corresponding to 7th amsha of Lagna is same as 7th house in

> navamsha.When you think of Karakamsha examples too,consideration from

> rashi or navamshas corresponds to the same sign.But

> Paparkshe,Bhrigwonkaraka Varge etc are helping us.

>

> If you see the example of Queen Elisaeth - it is pretty clear.We will

> not get may examples out of coincidence - do we.

>

> Sages do not mention anything without a purpose.So is the case with

> Swamsha/Navamsha Lagna Rajayoga.We have seen a false interpretation

> of this yoga and we have seen many individuals coming and saying why

> i am not a Raja.We will take up this exercise and see why this

> interpretation has failed.Sage is correct.Our interpretation matters.

>

> My examples are only for the members who are curious to know the

> Truth.Others can ignore.

>

> Regds

> Pradeep

>

> , " S.C. Kursija "

> wrote:

> >

> > Dear members,

> > I feel the discussion has taken an ugly turn. It is

> > not going to serve our purpose of coming to the

> > conclusion that one should use aspect in varga or not.

> > I have struck a shlok XXI chapter XVI on Satrijataka

> > in Jatak Parijat by Vaidhanatha while writing a write

> > up on Marital discord, separation and divorce and

> > planets.

> > It states that " when 7th house in Navamsha belong to

> > Mars and aspected by Saturn, she will have diseases of

> > womb " So aspect in varga has been in use in classics

> > also, particularly Navamsha.

> >

> > --- vijayadas_pradeep

> > wrote:

> >

> > > Dear Bhaskar ji

> > >

> > > Kindly leave me alone.I just replied to a mail from

> > > Prafulla ji.

> > >

> > > Regds

> > > Pradeep

> > >

> > > , " Bhaskar "

> > >

> > > wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Dear Shri Pradeepji,

> > > >

> > > > Again the same thing has been started.

> > > > You are quoting one side of Shri Santhanamji,

> > > > whereas I have already priovided few references

> > > from his

> > > > own publications, in the previous part of the

> > > thread, where

> > > > he has clearly used aspects in vargas, and so has

> > > BV Ramanji

> > > > and so has Mr. KN rao. And I have provided proof

> > > from all these

> > > > authors publications. So who has done more reading

> > > actually among

> > > > the members present here ?

> > > >

> > > > Regardless of the proofs which I have given, where

> > > all

> > > > these authors have used aspects in Vargas,

> > > > If You notice all my messages, posts, I have

> > > nowhere

> > > > mentioned that they were right and now here

> > > mentioned that

> > > > they were wrong.

> > > >

> > > > So what does that mean ?

> > > >

> > > > It means that I am just following their

> > > commentaries and

> > > > explanations without any bias in my mind, and

> > > without

> > > > any pre-set thinking'that they are wrong or right.

> > > >

> > > > And thats how we are all supposed to behave.

> > > >

> > > > And those who say that they are wrong,

> > > > have to prove this conclusively with their

> > > logic-tarka-

> > > > pramana, or else just stay quiet, like we do.

> > > >

> > > > regards,

> > > > Bhaskar.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > -- In ,

> > > " vijayadas_pradeep "

> > > > wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > > Dear Shri Tarun

> > > > >

> > > > > I do not want to tell anything.I can only make a

> > > sleeping person

> > > > > awake not a pretender.

> > > > >

> > > > > Neither i do what is longitudinal nor i know how

> > > to draw varga

> > > charts

> > > > > as proposed by your group.Neither does Late

> > > Santhanam.

> > > > >

> > > > > For your kind information it is not western.Ask

> > > your friend who

> > > gave

> > > > > you kha what is Sphuta.

> > > > >

> > > > > Then show him the following -

> > > > >

> > > > > " 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. "

> > > > >

> > > > > Pls ask him if this earlier chapter is from BPHS

> > > or western.

> > > > >

> > > > > Dear friend ,you are young.Kindly verify things

> > > before you

> > > talk.It is

> > > > > not an advise -But always do the homework before

> > > we present

> > > something.

> > > > >

> > > > > Regds

> > > > > Pradeep

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > , " Tarun "

> > > wrote:

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Dear Pradeep ji

> > > > > >

> > > > > > u said -

> > > > > >

> > > > > > > Late Sri R. Santhanam states in his book

> > > Deva Keralam that "

> > > the

> > > > > > > aspect as a rule should be seen in rashi

> > > chart only, not in

> > > > > navamsha

> > > > > > > and other charts, for aspects emanate only

> > > by longitudinal

> > > > > > > distances " .

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Can u tell me what are longitudinal aspects

> > > ???

> > > > > >

> > > > > > i hoep they are the same as in western

> > > astrology ( 30,45, 60 ,

> > > 90 ,

> > > > > > 120 , 135, 150 , 180) and minor aspects like

> > > 36 , 72 etc.)

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Do u know how varga charts are made...how D-9

> > > is made. if yes

> > > then

> > > > > > you yourself disagree with your views.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > late santhanam did not mention of Pluto in

> > > BPHS..but he has

> > > used in

> > > > > > artcile as quoted by Prafulla ji. so what does

> > > it imply? can we

> > > say

> > > > > > that - Late Santhnam was against using Pluto -

> > > as his BPHS

> > > > > > translation talks only for 9 grahas

> > > > > >

> > > > > > I hope you will reply to each of my line

> > > asked. without

> > > skipping

> > > > > > anything.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Warm Regards,

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Tarun

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > > , " Prafulla

> > > Gang "

> > > > > > wrote:

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Dear Shri Pradeep ji

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Now you mean to say that - opposition of

> > > planets in D chakra

> > > will

> > > > > > > affect without aspects? how? guru in lagan

> > > in D9 and venus in

> > > 7th

> > > > > in

> > > > > > > D9 - how will they affect together, without

> > > considering this

> > > > > > > association through aspects.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > You again twisted.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > I asked you one basic thing. If you do not

> > > approve late

> > > > > Santhanam's

> > > > > > D

> > > > > > > chakra interpretation model - then why are

> > > you referring his

> > > one

> > > > > > > statement on aspects in BPHS (overlooking

> > > his own case

> > > studies in

> > > > > > > TOA). Do you mean to say that since you

> > > accept his one

> > > statement

> > > > > on

> > > > > > > aspects, do you accept this theory on D

> > > chakra (if they

> > > exist,

> > > > > > whether

> > > > > > > combination works in D chakra etc). If his D

> > > chakra theory is

> > > not

> > > > > > > accepted by you, then is it not selective

> > > and misquote.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > The contention is not only on Aspects, but

> > > on the existence

> > > of D

> > > > > > > chakra itself.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Or I understand now that - you have agreed

> > > that - D chakra

> > > exists,

> > > > > > > Combinations can be considered in D charts.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > If you are rejecting his D chakra opinion -

> > > then please do

> > > not

> > > > > quote

> > > > > > > him for aspects, without reading his

> > > articles and case

> > > studies -

> > > > > > which

> > > > > > > are available in public domain. It will be

> > > injustice with

> > > learned

> > > > > > > soul. Forget about us, but do respect a

> > > learned soul.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > regards / Prafulla

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > ,

> > > " vijayadas_pradeep "

> > > > > > > wrote:

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Dear Prafulla ji

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Every ''Navamsha chart'' will have atleast

> > > one

> > > opposition.If

> > > > > they

> > > > > > > > are in opposition they should ''aspect''

> > > as per you.Also as

> > > per

> > > > > > you

> > > > > > > > Late Santhanam too felt ,if in opposition

> > > they

> > > will ''aspect''.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > So you mean to say -

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > While Translating BPHS

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > 1)Late Santhanam was unaware about this

> > > simple ''opposition''

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > 2)Late Santhanam for chumma some fun

> > > mentioned so during

> > > the

> > > > > > > > translation

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Either of the above should be ''true'' -

> > > else why should

> > > the

> > > > > BPHS

> > > > > > > > translator say as mentioned below.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Late Sri R. Santhanam states in his book

> > > Deva Keralam

> > > that "

> > > > > the

> > > > > > > > aspect as a rule should be seen in rashi

> > > chart only, not in

> > > > > > navamsha

> > > > > > > > and other charts, for aspects emanate only

> > > by longitudinal

> > > > > > > > distances " .

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > This will be my last reply for your

> > > misquote on Late

> > > > > Santhanam's

> > > > > > > > view on aspects in varga chakras.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Regds

> > > > > > > > Pradeep

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

[Guest guest]

Dear All,

 

Aspects are to be used in Rashi as well as in Navamsha or other divisional

charts. This is what I have learnt and find giving me results. If anyone has any

disagreement on it, it is for him to decide but dear friends, in astrology,

never try and convince anyone with your view point, always ask him to try out

first and then see. Thats the best test. If still, one disagrees, then let it

be, leave it for him/her to find out. Why get into an unending debate?

 

regards,

 

Manoj

 

Bhaskar <bhaskar_jyotish wrote:

Dear all,

 

Again we are coming back to the start of our thread.

The whole story is going to be repeated it seems.

 

I do not cancel or reject the sattement that

amsha is brought back to the Rashi in Rashi

Chart and studied, BUT

 

the other studies also cannot be categorically

rejected where Santhanam, KN Rao and BV Raman

have exclusively used aspects even in the Navamsha

Chart and confirmed what they have seen in the Rashi,

or in the characteristiocs of the person.

Were they wrong, and all of them ?

 

KN rao has also used aspects in Vimsamsa. Is he

wrong ? What about LR Chawdhari. I am not even

commenting on him.

 

all these are wrong? Or have they misinterpreted

the shlokas wrongly ?

 

How can we prove that

" I can only interpret the shlokas rightly " AND

" All these do not know proper sanskrit, and have

misinterpreted the shlokas wrongly "

 

Another point-

If I accept that all these people knew that it is

wrong to see aspects from the Navamsha Chart, then

why were they all doing so in their various books

and hundreds of example charts ?

 

The above is a matter of speculation,

and not That one person is

right and all the rest are wrong and

living in a fools paradise.

 

Bhaskar.

 

, " vijayadas_pradeep "

<vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

>

> Dear Kursija ji

>

> This was discussed.Kaujesthamshe.

> There is one technique where the navamshas are counted.For example

> the 7th amsha of Lagna.If this amsha falls in the kshethra of Mars

> and is aspected by saturn the said yoga results.Dashadhyayi explains

> Kaujesthamshe.

>

> Aspects are always w.r to Rashi.All the confusion arises as the sign

> corresponding to 7th amsha of Lagna is same as 7th house in

> navamsha.When you think of Karakamsha examples too,consideration from

> rashi or navamshas corresponds to the same sign.But

> Paparkshe,Bhrigwonkaraka Varge etc are helping us.

>

> If you see the example of Queen Elisaeth - it is pretty clear.We will

> not get may examples out of coincidence - do we.

>

> Sages do not mention anything without a purpose.So is the case with

> Swamsha/Navamsha Lagna Rajayoga.We have seen a false interpretation

> of this yoga and we have seen many individuals coming and saying why

> i am not a Raja.We will take up this exercise and see why this

> interpretation has failed.Sage is correct.Our interpretation matters.

>

> My examples are only for the members who are curious to know the

> Truth.Others can ignore.

>

> Regds

> Pradeep

>

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

> wrote:

> >

> > Dear members,

> > I feel the discussion has taken an ugly turn. It is

> > not going to serve our purpose of coming to the

> > conclusion that one should use aspect in varga or not.

> > I have struck a shlok XXI chapter XVI on Satrijataka

> > in Jatak Parijat by Vaidhanatha while writing a write

> > up on Marital discord, separation and divorce and

> > planets.

> > It states that " when 7th house in Navamsha belong to

> > Mars and aspected by Saturn, she will have diseases of

> > womb " So aspect in varga has been in use in classics

> > also, particularly Navamsha.

> >

> > --- vijayadas_pradeep <vijayadas_pradeep@>

> > wrote:

> >

> > > Dear Bhaskar ji

> > >

> > > Kindly leave me alone.I just replied to a mail from

> > > Prafulla ji.

> > >

> > > Regds

> > > Pradeep

> > >

> > > , " Bhaskar "

> > > <bhaskar_jyotish@>

> > > wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Dear Shri Pradeepji,

> > > >

> > > > Again the same thing has been started.

> > > > You are quoting one side of Shri Santhanamji,

> > > > whereas I have already priovided few references

> > > from his

> > > > own publications, in the previous part of the

> > > thread, where

> > > > he has clearly used aspects in vargas, and so has

> > > BV Ramanji

> > > > and so has Mr. KN rao. And I have provided proof

> > > from all these

> > > > authors publications. So who has done more reading

> > > actually among

> > > > the members present here ?

> > > >

> > > > Regardless of the proofs which I have given, where

> > > all

> > > > these authors have used aspects in Vargas,

> > > > If You notice all my messages, posts, I have

> > > nowhere

> > > > mentioned that they were right and now here

> > > mentioned that

> > > > they were wrong.

> > > >

> > > > So what does that mean ?

> > > >

> > > > It means that I am just following their

> > > commentaries and

> > > > explanations without any bias in my mind, and

> > > without

> > > > any pre-set thinking'that they are wrong or right.

> > > >

> > > > And thats how we are all supposed to behave.

> > > >

> > > > And those who say that they are wrong,

> > > > have to prove this conclusively with their

> > > logic-tarka-

> > > > pramana, or else just stay quiet, like we do.

> > > >

> > > > regards,

> > > > Bhaskar.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > -- In ,

> > > " vijayadas_pradeep "

> > > > <vijayadas_pradeep@> wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > > Dear Shri Tarun

> > > > >

> > > > > I do not want to tell anything.I can only make a

> > > sleeping person

> > > > > awake not a pretender.

> > > > >

> > > > > Neither i do what is longitudinal nor i know how

> > > to draw varga

> > > charts

> > > > > as proposed by your group.Neither does Late

> > > Santhanam.

> > > > >

> > > > > For your kind information it is not western.Ask

> > > your friend who

> > > gave

> > > > > you kha what is Sphuta.

> > > > >

> > > > > Then show him the following -

> > > > >

> > > > > " 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. "

> > > > >

> > > > > Pls ask him if this earlier chapter is from BPHS

> > > or western.

> > > > >

> > > > > Dear friend ,you are young.Kindly verify things

> > > before you

> > > talk.It is

> > > > > not an advise -But always do the homework before

> > > we present

> > > something.

> > > > >

> > > > > Regds

> > > > > Pradeep

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > , " Tarun "

> > > <tarun.virgo@> wrote:

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Dear Pradeep ji

> > > > > >

> > > > > > u said -

> > > > > >

> > > > > > > Late Sri R. Santhanam states in his book

> > > Deva Keralam that "

> > > the

> > > > > > > aspect as a rule should be seen in rashi

> > > chart only, not in

> > > > > navamsha

> > > > > > > and other charts, for aspects emanate only

> > > by longitudinal

> > > > > > > distances " .

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Can u tell me what are longitudinal aspects

> > > ???

> > > > > >

> > > > > > i hoep they are the same as in western

> > > astrology ( 30,45, 60 ,

> > > 90 ,

> > > > > > 120 , 135, 150 , 180) and minor aspects like

> > > 36 , 72 etc.)

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Do u know how varga charts are made...how D-9

> > > is made. if yes

> > > then

> > > > > > you yourself disagree with your views.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > late santhanam did not mention of Pluto in

> > > BPHS..but he has

> > > used in

> > > > > > artcile as quoted by Prafulla ji. so what does

> > > it imply? can we

> > > say

> > > > > > that - Late Santhnam was against using Pluto -

> > > as his BPHS

> > > > > > translation talks only for 9 grahas

> > > > > >

> > > > > > I hope you will reply to each of my line

> > > asked. without

> > > skipping

> > > > > > anything.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Warm Regards,

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Tarun

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > > , " Prafulla

> > > Gang " <jyotish@>

> > > > > > wrote:

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Dear Shri Pradeep ji

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Now you mean to say that - opposition of

> > > planets in D chakra

> > > will

> > > > > > > affect without aspects? how? guru in lagan

> > > in D9 and venus in

> > > 7th

> > > > > in

> > > > > > > D9 - how will they affect together, without

> > > considering this

> > > > > > > association through aspects.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > You again twisted.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > I asked you one basic thing. If you do not

> > > approve late

> > > > > Santhanam's

> > > > > > D

> > > > > > > chakra interpretation model - then why are

> > > you referring his

> > > one

> > > > > > > statement on aspects in BPHS (overlooking

> > > his own case

> > > studies in

> > > > > > > TOA). Do you mean to say that since you

> > > accept his one

> > > statement

> > > > > on

> > > > > > > aspects, do you accept this theory on D

> > > chakra (if they

> > > exist,

> > > > > > whether

> > > > > > > combination works in D chakra etc). If his D

> > > chakra theory is

> > > not

> > > > > > > accepted by you, then is it not selective

> > > and misquote.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > The contention is not only on Aspects, but

> > > on the existence

> > > of D

> > > > > > > chakra itself.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Or I understand now that - you have agreed

> > > that - D chakra

> > > exists,

> > > > > > > Combinations can be considered in D charts.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > If you are rejecting his D chakra opinion -

> > > then please do

> > > not

> > > > > quote

> > > > > > > him for aspects, without reading his

> > > articles and case

> > > studies -

> > > > > > which

> > > > > > > are available in public domain. It will be

> > > injustice with

> > > learned

> > > > > > > soul. Forget about us, but do respect a

> > > learned soul.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > regards / Prafulla

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > ,

> > > " vijayadas_pradeep "

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

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Dear Prafulla ji

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Every ''Navamsha chart'' will have atleast

> > > one

> > > opposition.If

> > > > > they

> > > > > > > > are in opposition they should ''aspect''

> > > as per you.Also as

> > > per

> > > > > > you

> > > > > > > > Late Santhanam too felt ,if in opposition

> > > they

> > > will ''aspect''.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > So you mean to say -

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > While Translating BPHS

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > 1)Late Santhanam was unaware about this

> > > simple ''opposition''

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > 2)Late Santhanam for chumma some fun

> > > mentioned so during

> > > the

> > > > > > > > translation

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Either of the above should be ''true'' -

> > > else why should

> > > the

> > > > > BPHS

> > > > > > > > translator say as mentioned below.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Late Sri R. Santhanam states in his book

> > > Deva Keralam

> > > that "

> > > > > the

> > > > > > > > aspect as a rule should be seen in rashi

> > > chart only, not in

> > > > > > navamsha

> > > > > > > > and other charts, for aspects emanate only

> > > by longitudinal

> > > > > > > > distances " .

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > This will be my last reply for your

> > > misquote on Late

> > > > > Santhanam's

> > > > > > > > view on aspects in varga chakras.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Regds

> > > > > > > > Pradeep

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

[Guest guest]

Dear Bhaskar,

If saturn is placed in any chart in 6th house and sitted 12th house in

Navmansa on different sign.So according to you now we should check its six

aspecting, three by chart and other three by Namamansa amazing.We can check the

strength of saturn by placement in Navmansa only in such case but how can we

access its aspecting that will give different results as per aforesaid

placements surely.

KP system was not accepted fully by the said stalwarts to whom you have

mentioned. Therefore should we also not accept the same system?Plz check the

theory again with open mind.Remember the future K N Rao,B V Raman or Santhanam

might be born among us.Blind following becomes always not good.You should try

your own VIVEK.Sorry but this is my last mail about the same subject.

 

Ratnaakar

 

 

Bhaskar <bhaskar_jyotish wrote:

Dear Ratnakaar,

 

If Navamsha Chart is also one of the Vargas, then

aspects have been observed by Santhanam,BV Raman

and KN Rao,all of these three, which I have proved

through quoting the relevant page numbers from their

books, and not not once but many times,

 

I request you to comment on their use of aspects

while charting example charts and explaining to the

readers in their books.

 

Why would they do so, if there was no base

or substance in this ?

 

regards,

Bhaskar.

 

 

, Ratnaakar wrote:

>

> Dear Mr. Pradeep,

> You are absolutely right that aspecting of planets are not applied

in Vargas at all except in Janam or Chandra laganas but no one will

try to accept it here because others are adamant on their fake

egoism.So why do you waste your energy and time on baseless matter?Plz

leave this topic and let them live in fools paradise.

>

> Ratnaakar

>

>

> vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> Dear Kursija ji

>

> This was discussed.Kaujesthamshe.

> There is one technique where the navamshas are counted.For example

> the 7th amsha of Lagna.If this amsha falls in the kshethra of Mars

> and is aspected by saturn the said yoga results.Dashadhyayi explains

> Kaujesthamshe.

>

> Aspects are always w.r to Rashi.All the confusion arises as the sign

> corresponding to 7th amsha of Lagna is same as 7th house in

> navamsha.When you think of Karakamsha examples too,consideration from

> rashi or navamshas corresponds to the same sign.But

> Paparkshe,Bhrigwonkaraka Varge etc are helping us.

>

> If you see the example of Queen Elisaeth - it is pretty clear.We will

> not get may examples out of coincidence - do we.

>

> Sages do not mention anything without a purpose.So is the case with

> Swamsha/Navamsha Lagna Rajayoga.We have seen a false interpretation

> of this yoga and we have seen many individuals coming and saying why

> i am not a Raja.We will take up this exercise and see why this

> interpretation has failed.Sage is correct.Our interpretation matters.

>

> My examples are only for the members who are curious to know the

> Truth.Others can ignore.

>

> Regds

> Pradeep

>

> , " S.C. Kursija "

> wrote:

> >

> > Dear members,

> > I feel the discussion has taken an ugly turn. It is

> > not going to serve our purpose of coming to the

> > conclusion that one should use aspect in varga or not.

> > I have struck a shlok XXI chapter XVI on Satrijataka

> > in Jatak Parijat by Vaidhanatha while writing a write

> > up on Marital discord, separation and divorce and

> > planets.

> > It states that " when 7th house in Navamsha belong to

> > Mars and aspected by Saturn, she will have diseases of

> > womb " So aspect in varga has been in use in classics

> > also, particularly Navamsha.

> >

> > --- vijayadas_pradeep

> > wrote:

> >

> > > Dear Bhaskar ji

> > >

> > > Kindly leave me alone.I just replied to a mail from

> > > Prafulla ji.

> > >

> > > Regds

> > > Pradeep

> > >

> > > , " Bhaskar "

> > >

> > > wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Dear Shri Pradeepji,

> > > >

> > > > Again the same thing has been started.

> > > > You are quoting one side of Shri Santhanamji,

> > > > whereas I have already priovided few references

> > > from his

> > > > own publications, in the previous part of the

> > > thread, where

> > > > he has clearly used aspects in vargas, and so has

> > > BV Ramanji

> > > > and so has Mr. KN rao. And I have provided proof

> > > from all these

> > > > authors publications. So who has done more reading

> > > actually among

> > > > the members present here ?

> > > >

> > > > Regardless of the proofs which I have given, where

> > > all

> > > > these authors have used aspects in Vargas,

> > > > If You notice all my messages, posts, I have

> > > nowhere

> > > > mentioned that they were right and now here

> > > mentioned that

> > > > they were wrong.

> > > >

> > > > So what does that mean ?

> > > >

> > > > It means that I am just following their

> > > commentaries and

> > > > explanations without any bias in my mind, and

> > > without

> > > > any pre-set thinking'that they are wrong or right.

> > > >

> > > > And thats how we are all supposed to behave.

> > > >

> > > > And those who say that they are wrong,

> > > > have to prove this conclusively with their

> > > logic-tarka-

> > > > pramana, or else just stay quiet, like we do.

> > > >

> > > > regards,

> > > > Bhaskar.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > -- In ,

> > > " vijayadas_pradeep "

> > > > wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > > Dear Shri Tarun

> > > > >

> > > > > I do not want to tell anything.I can only make a

> > > sleeping person

> > > > > awake not a pretender.

> > > > >

> > > > > Neither i do what is longitudinal nor i know how

> > > to draw varga

> > > charts

> > > > > as proposed by your group.Neither does Late

> > > Santhanam.

> > > > >

> > > > > For your kind information it is not western.Ask

> > > your friend who

> > > gave

> > > > > you kha what is Sphuta.

> > > > >

> > > > > Then show him the following -

> > > > >

> > > > > " 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. "

> > > > >

> > > > > Pls ask him if this earlier chapter is from BPHS

> > > or western.

> > > > >

> > > > > Dear friend ,you are young.Kindly verify things

> > > before you

> > > talk.It is

> > > > > not an advise -But always do the homework before

> > > we present

> > > something.

> > > > >

> > > > > Regds

> > > > > Pradeep

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > , " Tarun "

> > > wrote:

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Dear Pradeep ji

> > > > > >

> > > > > > u said -

> > > > > >

> > > > > > > Late Sri R. Santhanam states in his book

> > > Deva Keralam that "

> > > the

> > > > > > > aspect as a rule should be seen in rashi

> > > chart only, not in

> > > > > navamsha

> > > > > > > and other charts, for aspects emanate only

> > > by longitudinal

> > > > > > > distances " .

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Can u tell me what are longitudinal aspects

> > > ???

> > > > > >

> > > > > > i hoep they are the same as in western

> > > astrology ( 30,45, 60 ,

> > > 90 ,

> > > > > > 120 , 135, 150 , 180) and minor aspects like

> > > 36 , 72 etc.)

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Do u know how varga charts are made...how D-9

> > > is made. if yes

> > > then

> > > > > > you yourself disagree with your views.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > late santhanam did not mention of Pluto in

> > > BPHS..but he has

> > > used in

> > > > > > artcile as quoted by Prafulla ji. so what does

> > > it imply? can we

> > > say

> > > > > > that - Late Santhnam was against using Pluto -

> > > as his BPHS

> > > > > > translation talks only for 9 grahas

> > > > > >

> > > > > > I hope you will reply to each of my line

> > > asked. without

> > > skipping

> > > > > > anything.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Warm Regards,

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Tarun

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > > , " Prafulla

> > > Gang "

> > > > > > wrote:

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Dear Shri Pradeep ji

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Now you mean to say that - opposition of

> > > planets in D chakra

> > > will

> > > > > > > affect without aspects? how? guru in lagan

> > > in D9 and venus in

> > > 7th

> > > > > in

> > > > > > > D9 - how will they affect together, without

> > > considering this

> > > > > > > association through aspects.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > You again twisted.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > I asked you one basic thing. If you do not

> > > approve late

> > > > > Santhanam's

> > > > > > D

> > > > > > > chakra interpretation model - then why are

> > > you referring his

> > > one

> > > > > > > statement on aspects in BPHS (overlooking

> > > his own case

> > > studies in

> > > > > > > TOA). Do you mean to say that since you

> > > accept his one

> > > statement

> > > > > on

> > > > > > > aspects, do you accept this theory on D

> > > chakra (if they

> > > exist,

> > > > > > whether

> > > > > > > combination works in D chakra etc). If his D

> > > chakra theory is

> > > not

> > > > > > > accepted by you, then is it not selective

> > > and misquote.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > The contention is not only on Aspects, but

> > > on the existence

> > > of D

> > > > > > > chakra itself.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Or I understand now that - you have agreed

> > > that - D chakra

> > > exists,

> > > > > > > Combinations can be considered in D charts.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > If you are rejecting his D chakra opinion -

> > > then please do

> > > not

> > > > > quote

> > > > > > > him for aspects, without reading his

> > > articles and case

> > > studies -

> > > > > > which

> > > > > > > are available in public domain. It will be

> > > injustice with

> > > learned

> > > > > > > soul. Forget about us, but do respect a

> > > learned soul.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > regards / Prafulla

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > ,

> > > " vijayadas_pradeep "

> > > > > > > wrote:

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Dear Prafulla ji

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Every ''Navamsha chart'' will have atleast

> > > one

> > > opposition.If

> > > > > they

> > > > > > > > are in opposition they should ''aspect''

> > > as per you.Also as

> > > per

> > > > > > you

> > > > > > > > Late Santhanam too felt ,if in opposition

> > > they

> > > will ''aspect''.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > So you mean to say -

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > While Translating BPHS

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > 1)Late Santhanam was unaware about this

> > > simple ''opposition''

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > 2)Late Santhanam for chumma some fun

> > > mentioned so during

> > > the

> > > > > > > > translation

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Either of the above should be ''true'' -

> > > else why should

> > > the

> > > > > BPHS

> > > > > > > > translator say as mentioned below.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Late Sri R. Santhanam states in his book

> > > Deva Keralam

> > > that "

> > > > > the

> > > > > > > > aspect as a rule should be seen in rashi

> > > chart only, not in

> > > > > > navamsha

> > > > > > > > and other charts, for aspects emanate only

> > > by longitudinal

> > > > > > > > distances " .

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > This will be my last reply for your

> > > misquote on Late

> > > > > Santhanam's

> > > > > > > > view on aspects in varga chakras.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Regds

> > > > > > > > Pradeep

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

[Guest guest]

Dear Ratnakarji,

 

Aspects 3 from Rashi,3 from Navamsha - is only one

story from the monthly magazine Chandamama.

You have to read the whole Magazine to say, that I

have read this months Chandamama.

 

Talking about 6 aspects. How they are

to be used ?

Example-

If You find that the 4th House

and Lord is afflicted in the Rashi Chart.

You check the same in Navamsha by watching the

aspect of Saturn on the 4th house in Navamsha

or the Navamsha Lord or on the moon.

And if there is good aspect on thse,by

Saturn, then you can conclude Sanyasa Yoga

or detachment or going away from the house,

when you talk of Saturn or moon or 4th house

effects.

 

I am not sayiing that You or anyone should accept,

aspects in Navamsha, I am only saying that do not

tell anyone, not to see aspects in the Varga Charts.

Let everyone follow what works with them.

 

The 3 stalwarts, were all doing Kp system, by

the way, must be news for you, they made good

predictions only by using the KP system.

Now if you ask me How can You say this?

Then KP system is nothing but the nakshatra

part of Vedic astrology, which all of these great

people were following.

 

Roti would remain Roti anyway. If You make it

fat and burn it in the Oven instead of a tava

and put vegetable and cheese on it and serve, the

moderns would call it Pizza. But I still call it

a fat Roti being sold for Rs.40-80 per piece.

 

Therefore the modern people call this the Kp

system.which is just the Nakshatra approach

to predictions.

 

Blind following is wrong, and so is blind

rejection of others views.

 

best wishes,

Bhaskar.

 

 

 

 

, Ratnaakar <namra_nivedan wrote:

>

> Dear Bhaskar,

> If saturn is placed in any chart in 6th house and sitted 12th

house in Navmansa on different sign.So according to you now we should

check its six aspecting, three by chart and other three by Namamansa

amazing.We can check the strength of saturn by placement in Navmansa

only in such case but how can we access its aspecting that will give

different results as per aforesaid placements surely.

> KP system was not accepted fully by the said stalwarts to whom you

have mentioned. Therefore should we also not accept the same

system?Plz check the theory again with open mind.Remember the future K

N Rao,B V Raman or Santhanam might be born among us.Blind following

becomes always not good.You should try your own VIVEK.Sorry but this

is my last mail about the same subject.

>

> Ratnaakar

>

>

> Bhaskar <bhaskar_jyotish wrote:

> Dear Ratnakaar,

>

> If Navamsha Chart is also one of the Vargas, then

> aspects have been observed by Santhanam,BV Raman

> and KN Rao,all of these three, which I have proved

> through quoting the relevant page numbers from their

> books, and not not once but many times,

>

> I request you to comment on their use of aspects

> while charting example charts and explaining to the

> readers in their books.

>

> Why would they do so, if there was no base

> or substance in this ?

>

> regards,

> Bhaskar.

>

>

> , Ratnaakar wrote:

> >

> > Dear Mr. Pradeep,

> > You are absolutely right that aspecting of planets are not applied

> in Vargas at all except in Janam or Chandra laganas but no one will

> try to accept it here because others are adamant on their fake

> egoism.So why do you waste your energy and time on baseless matter?Plz

> leave this topic and let them live in fools paradise.

> >

> > Ratnaakar

> >

> >

> > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > Dear Kursija ji

> >

> > This was discussed.Kaujesthamshe.

> > There is one technique where the navamshas are counted.For example

> > the 7th amsha of Lagna.If this amsha falls in the kshethra of Mars

> > and is aspected by saturn the said yoga results.Dashadhyayi explains

> > Kaujesthamshe.

> >

> > Aspects are always w.r to Rashi.All the confusion arises as the sign

> > corresponding to 7th amsha of Lagna is same as 7th house in

> > navamsha.When you think of Karakamsha examples too,consideration from

> > rashi or navamshas corresponds to the same sign.But

> > Paparkshe,Bhrigwonkaraka Varge etc are helping us.

> >

> > If you see the example of Queen Elisaeth - it is pretty clear.We will

> > not get may examples out of coincidence - do we.

> >

> > Sages do not mention anything without a purpose.So is the case with

> > Swamsha/Navamsha Lagna Rajayoga.We have seen a false interpretation

> > of this yoga and we have seen many individuals coming and saying why

> > i am not a Raja.We will take up this exercise and see why this

> > interpretation has failed.Sage is correct.Our interpretation matters.

> >

> > My examples are only for the members who are curious to know the

> > Truth.Others can ignore.

> >

> > Regds

> > Pradeep

> >

> > , " S.C. Kursija "

> > wrote:

> > >

> > > Dear members,

> > > I feel the discussion has taken an ugly turn. It is

> > > not going to serve our purpose of coming to the

> > > conclusion that one should use aspect in varga or not.

> > > I have struck a shlok XXI chapter XVI on Satrijataka

> > > in Jatak Parijat by Vaidhanatha while writing a write

> > > up on Marital discord, separation and divorce and

> > > planets.

> > > It states that " when 7th house in Navamsha belong to

> > > Mars and aspected by Saturn, she will have diseases of

> > > womb " So aspect in varga has been in use in classics

> > > also, particularly Navamsha.

> > >

> > > --- vijayadas_pradeep

> > > wrote:

> > >

> > > > Dear Bhaskar ji

> > > >

> > > > Kindly leave me alone.I just replied to a mail from

> > > > Prafulla ji.

> > > >

> > > > Regds

> > > > Pradeep

> > > >

> > > > , " Bhaskar "

> > > >

> > > > wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > > Dear Shri Pradeepji,

> > > > >

> > > > > Again the same thing has been started.

> > > > > You are quoting one side of Shri Santhanamji,

> > > > > whereas I have already priovided few references

> > > > from his

> > > > > own publications, in the previous part of the

> > > > thread, where

> > > > > he has clearly used aspects in vargas, and so has

> > > > BV Ramanji

> > > > > and so has Mr. KN rao. And I have provided proof

> > > > from all these

> > > > > authors publications. So who has done more reading

> > > > actually among

> > > > > the members present here ?

> > > > >

> > > > > Regardless of the proofs which I have given, where

> > > > all

> > > > > these authors have used aspects in Vargas,

> > > > > If You notice all my messages, posts, I have

> > > > nowhere

> > > > > mentioned that they were right and now here

> > > > mentioned that

> > > > > they were wrong.

> > > > >

> > > > > So what does that mean ?

> > > > >

> > > > > It means that I am just following their

> > > > commentaries and

> > > > > explanations without any bias in my mind, and

> > > > without

> > > > > any pre-set thinking'that they are wrong or right.

> > > > >

> > > > > And thats how we are all supposed to behave.

> > > > >

> > > > > And those who say that they are wrong,

> > > > > have to prove this conclusively with their

> > > > logic-tarka-

> > > > > pramana, or else just stay quiet, like we do.

> > > > >

> > > > > regards,

> > > > > Bhaskar.

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > -- In ,

> > > > " vijayadas_pradeep "

> > > > > wrote:

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Dear Shri Tarun

> > > > > >

> > > > > > I do not want to tell anything.I can only make a

> > > > sleeping person

> > > > > > awake not a pretender.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Neither i do what is longitudinal nor i know how

> > > > to draw varga

> > > > charts

> > > > > > as proposed by your group.Neither does Late

> > > > Santhanam.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > For your kind information it is not western.Ask

> > > > your friend who

> > > > gave

> > > > > > you kha what is Sphuta.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Then show him the following -

> > > > > >

> > > > > > " 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. "

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Pls ask him if this earlier chapter is from BPHS

> > > > or western.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Dear friend ,you are young.Kindly verify things

> > > > before you

> > > > talk.It is

> > > > > > not an advise -But always do the homework before

> > > > we present

> > > > something.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Regds

> > > > > > Pradeep

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > > , " Tarun "

> > > > wrote:

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Dear Pradeep ji

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > u said -

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Late Sri R. Santhanam states in his book

> > > > Deva Keralam that "

> > > > the

> > > > > > > > aspect as a rule should be seen in rashi

> > > > chart only, not in

> > > > > > navamsha

> > > > > > > > and other charts, for aspects emanate only

> > > > by longitudinal

> > > > > > > > distances " .

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Can u tell me what are longitudinal aspects

> > > > ???

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > i hoep they are the same as in western

> > > > astrology ( 30,45, 60 ,

> > > > 90 ,

> > > > > > > 120 , 135, 150 , 180) and minor aspects like

> > > > 36 , 72 etc.)

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Do u know how varga charts are made...how D-9

> > > > is made. if yes

> > > > then

> > > > > > > you yourself disagree with your views.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > late santhanam did not mention of Pluto in

> > > > BPHS..but he has

> > > > used in

> > > > > > > artcile as quoted by Prafulla ji. so what does

> > > > it imply? can we

> > > > say

> > > > > > > that - Late Santhnam was against using Pluto -

> > > > as his BPHS

> > > > > > > translation talks only for 9 grahas

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > I hope you will reply to each of my line

> > > > asked. without

> > > > skipping

> > > > > > > anything.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Warm Regards,

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Tarun

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > , " Prafulla

> > > > Gang "

> > > > > > > wrote:

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Dear Shri Pradeep ji

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Now you mean to say that - opposition of

> > > > planets in D chakra

> > > > will

> > > > > > > > affect without aspects? how? guru in lagan

> > > > in D9 and venus in

> > > > 7th

> > > > > > in

> > > > > > > > D9 - how will they affect together, without

> > > > considering this

> > > > > > > > association through aspects.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > You again twisted.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > I asked you one basic thing. If you do not

> > > > approve late

> > > > > > Santhanam's

> > > > > > > D

> > > > > > > > chakra interpretation model - then why are

> > > > you referring his

> > > > one

> > > > > > > > statement on aspects in BPHS (overlooking

> > > > his own case

> > > > studies in

> > > > > > > > TOA). Do you mean to say that since you

> > > > accept his one

> > > > statement

> > > > > > on

> > > > > > > > aspects, do you accept this theory on D

> > > > chakra (if they

> > > > exist,

> > > > > > > whether

> > > > > > > > combination works in D chakra etc). If his D

> > > > chakra theory is

> > > > not

> > > > > > > > accepted by you, then is it not selective

> > > > and misquote.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > The contention is not only on Aspects, but

> > > > on the existence

> > > > of D

> > > > > > > > chakra itself.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Or I understand now that - you have agreed

> > > > that - D chakra

> > > > exists,

> > > > > > > > Combinations can be considered in D charts.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > If you are rejecting his D chakra opinion -

> > > > then please do

> > > > not

> > > > > > quote

> > > > > > > > him for aspects, without reading his

> > > > articles and case

> > > > studies -

> > > > > > > which

> > > > > > > > are available in public domain. It will be

> > > > injustice with

> > > > learned

> > > > > > > > soul. Forget about us, but do respect a

> > > > learned soul.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > regards / Prafulla

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > ,

> > > > " vijayadas_pradeep "

> > > > > > > > wrote:

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Dear Prafulla ji

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Every ''Navamsha chart'' will have atleast

> > > > one

> > > > opposition.If

> > > > > > they

> > > > > > > > > are in opposition they should ''aspect''

> > > > as per you.Also as

> > > > per

> > > > > > > you

> > > > > > > > > Late Santhanam too felt ,if in opposition

> > > > they

> > > > will ''aspect''.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > So you mean to say -

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > While Translating BPHS

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > 1)Late Santhanam was unaware about this

> > > > simple ''opposition''

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > 2)Late Santhanam for chumma some fun

> > > > mentioned so during

> > > > the

> > > > > > > > > translation

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Either of the above should be ''true'' -

> > > > else why should

> > > > the

> > > > > > BPHS

> > > > > > > > > translator say as mentioned below.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Late Sri R. Santhanam states in his book

> > > > Deva Keralam

> > > > that "

> > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > aspect as a rule should be seen in rashi

> > > > chart only, not in

> > > > > > > navamsha

> > > > > > > > > and other charts, for aspects emanate only

> > > > by longitudinal

> > > > > > > > > distances " .

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > This will be my last reply for your

> > > > misquote on Late

> > > > > > Santhanam's

> > > > > > > > > view on aspects in varga chakras.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Regds

> > > > > > > > > Pradeep

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

[Guest guest]

Dear Bhaskar ji,

What do you want to say? To know it is really difficult.God knows better.Ok

leave it and follows that you like.Truly Nakshtra is the essential and

commanding part of Vedic astrology.Henceforth what is the significance of KP?

 

Ratnaakar

 

 

Bhaskar <bhaskar_jyotish wrote:

Dear Ratnakarji,

 

Aspects 3 from Rashi,3 from Navamsha - is only one

story from the monthly magazine Chandamama.

You have to read the whole Magazine to say, that I

have read this months Chandamama.

 

Talking about 6 aspects. How they are

to be used ?

Example-

If You find that the 4th House

and Lord is afflicted in the Rashi Chart.

You check the same in Navamsha by watching the

aspect of Saturn on the 4th house in Navamsha

or the Navamsha Lord or on the moon.

And if there is good aspect on thse,by

Saturn, then you can conclude Sanyasa Yoga

or detachment or going away from the house,

when you talk of Saturn or moon or 4th house

effects.

 

I am not sayiing that You or anyone should accept,

aspects in Navamsha, I am only saying that do not

tell anyone, not to see aspects in the Varga Charts.

Let everyone follow what works with them.

 

The 3 stalwarts, were all doing Kp system, by

the way, must be news for you, they made good

predictions only by using the KP system.

Now if you ask me How can You say this?

Then KP system is nothing but the nakshatra

part of Vedic astrology, which all of these great

people were following.

 

Roti would remain Roti anyway. If You make it

fat and burn it in the Oven instead of a tava

and put vegetable and cheese on it and serve, the

moderns would call it Pizza. But I still call it

a fat Roti being sold for Rs.40-80 per piece.

 

Therefore the modern people call this the Kp

system.which is just the Nakshatra approach

to predictions.

 

Blind following is wrong, and so is blind

rejection of others views.

 

best wishes,

Bhaskar.

 

 

 

 

, Ratnaakar wrote:

>

> Dear Bhaskar,

> If saturn is placed in any chart in 6th house and sitted 12th

house in Navmansa on different sign.So according to you now we should

check its six aspecting, three by chart and other three by Namamansa

amazing.We can check the strength of saturn by placement in Navmansa

only in such case but how can we access its aspecting that will give

different results as per aforesaid placements surely.

> KP system was not accepted fully by the said stalwarts to whom you

have mentioned. Therefore should we also not accept the same

system?Plz check the theory again with open mind.Remember the future K

N Rao,B V Raman or Santhanam might be born among us.Blind following

becomes always not good.You should try your own VIVEK.Sorry but this

is my last mail about the same subject.

>

> Ratnaakar

>

>

> Bhaskar wrote:

> Dear Ratnakaar,

>

> If Navamsha Chart is also one of the Vargas, then

> aspects have been observed by Santhanam,BV Raman

> and KN Rao,all of these three, which I have proved

> through quoting the relevant page numbers from their

> books, and not not once but many times,

>

> I request you to comment on their use of aspects

> while charting example charts and explaining to the

> readers in their books.

>

> Why would they do so, if there was no base

> or substance in this ?

>

> regards,

> Bhaskar.

>

>

> , Ratnaakar wrote:

> >

> > Dear Mr. Pradeep,

> > You are absolutely right that aspecting of planets are not applied

> in Vargas at all except in Janam or Chandra laganas but no one will

> try to accept it here because others are adamant on their fake

> egoism.So why do you waste your energy and time on baseless matter?Plz

> leave this topic and let them live in fools paradise.

> >

> > Ratnaakar

> >

> >

> > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > Dear Kursija ji

> >

> > This was discussed.Kaujesthamshe.

> > There is one technique where the navamshas are counted.For example

> > the 7th amsha of Lagna.If this amsha falls in the kshethra of Mars

> > and is aspected by saturn the said yoga results.Dashadhyayi explains

> > Kaujesthamshe.

> >

> > Aspects are always w.r to Rashi.All the confusion arises as the sign

> > corresponding to 7th amsha of Lagna is same as 7th house in

> > navamsha.When you think of Karakamsha examples too,consideration from

> > rashi or navamshas corresponds to the same sign.But

> > Paparkshe,Bhrigwonkaraka Varge etc are helping us.

> >

> > If you see the example of Queen Elisaeth - it is pretty clear.We will

> > not get may examples out of coincidence - do we.

> >

> > Sages do not mention anything without a purpose.So is the case with

> > Swamsha/Navamsha Lagna Rajayoga.We have seen a false interpretation

> > of this yoga and we have seen many individuals coming and saying why

> > i am not a Raja.We will take up this exercise and see why this

> > interpretation has failed.Sage is correct.Our interpretation matters.

> >

> > My examples are only for the members who are curious to know the

> > Truth.Others can ignore.

> >

> > Regds

> > Pradeep

> >

> > , " S.C. Kursija "

> > wrote:

> > >

> > > Dear members,

> > > I feel the discussion has taken an ugly turn. It is

> > > not going to serve our purpose of coming to the

> > > conclusion that one should use aspect in varga or not.

> > > I have struck a shlok XXI chapter XVI on Satrijataka

> > > in Jatak Parijat by Vaidhanatha while writing a write

> > > up on Marital discord, separation and divorce and

> > > planets.

> > > It states that " when 7th house in Navamsha belong to

> > > Mars and aspected by Saturn, she will have diseases of

> > > womb " So aspect in varga has been in use in classics

> > > also, particularly Navamsha.

> > >

> > > --- vijayadas_pradeep

> > > wrote:

> > >

> > > > Dear Bhaskar ji

> > > >

> > > > Kindly leave me alone.I just replied to a mail from

> > > > Prafulla ji.

> > > >

> > > > Regds

> > > > Pradeep

> > > >

> > > > , " Bhaskar "

> > > >

> > > > wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > > Dear Shri Pradeepji,

> > > > >

> > > > > Again the same thing has been started.

> > > > > You are quoting one side of Shri Santhanamji,

> > > > > whereas I have already priovided few references

> > > > from his

> > > > > own publications, in the previous part of the

> > > > thread, where

> > > > > he has clearly used aspects in vargas, and so has

> > > > BV Ramanji

> > > > > and so has Mr. KN rao. And I have provided proof

> > > > from all these

> > > > > authors publications. So who has done more reading

> > > > actually among

> > > > > the members present here ?

> > > > >

> > > > > Regardless of the proofs which I have given, where

> > > > all

> > > > > these authors have used aspects in Vargas,

> > > > > If You notice all my messages, posts, I have

> > > > nowhere

> > > > > mentioned that they were right and now here

> > > > mentioned that

> > > > > they were wrong.

> > > > >

> > > > > So what does that mean ?

> > > > >

> > > > > It means that I am just following their

> > > > commentaries and

> > > > > explanations without any bias in my mind, and

> > > > without

> > > > > any pre-set thinking'that they are wrong or right.

> > > > >

> > > > > And thats how we are all supposed to behave.

> > > > >

> > > > > And those who say that they are wrong,

> > > > > have to prove this conclusively with their

> > > > logic-tarka-

> > > > > pramana, or else just stay quiet, like we do.

> > > > >

> > > > > regards,

> > > > > Bhaskar.

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > -- In ,

> > > > " vijayadas_pradeep "

> > > > > wrote:

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Dear Shri Tarun

> > > > > >

> > > > > > I do not want to tell anything.I can only make a

> > > > sleeping person

> > > > > > awake not a pretender.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Neither i do what is longitudinal nor i know how

> > > > to draw varga

> > > > charts

> > > > > > as proposed by your group.Neither does Late

> > > > Santhanam.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > For your kind information it is not western.Ask

> > > > your friend who

> > > > gave

> > > > > > you kha what is Sphuta.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Then show him the following -

> > > > > >

> > > > > > " 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. "

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Pls ask him if this earlier chapter is from BPHS

> > > > or western.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Dear friend ,you are young.Kindly verify things

> > > > before you

> > > > talk.It is

> > > > > > not an advise -But always do the homework before

> > > > we present

> > > > something.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Regds

> > > > > > Pradeep

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > > , " Tarun "

> > > > wrote:

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Dear Pradeep ji

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > u said -

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Late Sri R. Santhanam states in his book

> > > > Deva Keralam that "

> > > > the

> > > > > > > > aspect as a rule should be seen in rashi

> > > > chart only, not in

> > > > > > navamsha

> > > > > > > > and other charts, for aspects emanate only

> > > > by longitudinal

> > > > > > > > distances " .

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Can u tell me what are longitudinal aspects

> > > > ???

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > i hoep they are the same as in western

> > > > astrology ( 30,45, 60 ,

> > > > 90 ,

> > > > > > > 120 , 135, 150 , 180) and minor aspects like

> > > > 36 , 72 etc.)

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Do u know how varga charts are made...how D-9

> > > > is made. if yes

> > > > then

> > > > > > > you yourself disagree with your views.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > late santhanam did not mention of Pluto in

> > > > BPHS..but he has

> > > > used in

> > > > > > > artcile as quoted by Prafulla ji. so what does

> > > > it imply? can we

> > > > say

> > > > > > > that - Late Santhnam was against using Pluto -

> > > > as his BPHS

> > > > > > > translation talks only for 9 grahas

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > I hope you will reply to each of my line

> > > > asked. without

> > > > skipping

> > > > > > > anything.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Warm Regards,

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Tarun

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > , " Prafulla

> > > > Gang "

> > > > > > > wrote:

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Dear Shri Pradeep ji

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Now you mean to say that - opposition of

> > > > planets in D chakra

> > > > will

> > > > > > > > affect without aspects? how? guru in lagan

> > > > in D9 and venus in

> > > > 7th

> > > > > > in

> > > > > > > > D9 - how will they affect together, without

> > > > considering this

> > > > > > > > association through aspects.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > You again twisted.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > I asked you one basic thing. If you do not

> > > > approve late

> > > > > > Santhanam's

> > > > > > > D

> > > > > > > > chakra interpretation model - then why are

> > > > you referring his

> > > > one

> > > > > > > > statement on aspects in BPHS (overlooking

> > > > his own case

> > > > studies in

> > > > > > > > TOA). Do you mean to say that since you

> > > > accept his one

> > > > statement

> > > > > > on

> > > > > > > > aspects, do you accept this theory on D

> > > > chakra (if they

> > > > exist,

> > > > > > > whether

> > > > > > > > combination works in D chakra etc). If his D

> > > > chakra theory is

> > > > not

> > > > > > > > accepted by you, then is it not selective

> > > > and misquote.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > The contention is not only on Aspects, but

> > > > on the existence

> > > > of D

> > > > > > > > chakra itself.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Or I understand now that - you have agreed

> > > > that - D chakra

> > > > exists,

> > > > > > > > Combinations can be considered in D charts.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > If you are rejecting his D chakra opinion -

> > > > then please do

> > > > not

> > > > > > quote

> > > > > > > > him for aspects, without reading his

> > > > articles and case

> > > > studies -

> > > > > > > which

> > > > > > > > are available in public domain. It will be

> > > > injustice with

> > > > learned

> > > > > > > > soul. Forget about us, but do respect a

> > > > learned soul.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > regards / Prafulla

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > ,

> > > > " vijayadas_pradeep "

> > > > > > > > wrote:

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Dear Prafulla ji

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Every ''Navamsha chart'' will have atleast

> > > > one

> > > > opposition.If

> > > > > > they

> > > > > > > > > are in opposition they should ''aspect''

> > > > as per you.Also as

> > > > per

> > > > > > > you

> > > > > > > > > Late Santhanam too felt ,if in opposition

> > > > they

> > > > will ''aspect''.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > So you mean to say -

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > While Translating BPHS

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > 1)Late Santhanam was unaware about this

> > > > simple ''opposition''

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > 2)Late Santhanam for chumma some fun

> > > > mentioned so during

> > > > the

> > > > > > > > > translation

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Either of the above should be ''true'' -

> > > > else why should

> > > > the

> > > > > > BPHS

> > > > > > > > > translator say as mentioned below.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Late Sri R. Santhanam states in his book

> > > > Deva Keralam

> > > > that "

> > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > aspect as a rule should be seen in rashi

> > > > chart only, not in

> > > > > > > navamsha

> > > > > > > > > and other charts, for aspects emanate only

> > > > by longitudinal

> > > > > > > > > distances " .

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > This will be my last reply for your

> > > > misquote on Late

> > > > > > Santhanam's

> > > > > > > > > view on aspects in varga chakras.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Regds

> > > > > > > > > Pradeep

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

[Guest guest]

Dear Ratnakarji,

 

I am not a authority to say anything but just share

my experiences with you good people. And expect you to

share yours, so this Forum becomes a platform for

tarka in a healthy manner, and also a learning process

for all. I just meant to say that each is free to

follow what gives him the best results.

 

My own purpose of astrological debates, and sharing

experiences amounts to just learning-refreshing.

And finally amalgamation of the best styles of

predictions from all approaches, Sayana,Nirayana,

Vedic traditional,KP, Jamini,Ashtakvarga ,Nadi

and kp. The more tools we have, the more finer can

be the carving.

 

You asked the significance of KP. This can be well seen

in the followers of Kp using the methods as propogated

by KrishnaMurthy. We should not cease to remember that

ultimately all is Vedic, KP has specialised in one

part of Parashar Jyotish ie. Nakshatra. Jamini has

specialised on another part.It may be possible that in few

decades Ashtakvarga would be come to known as Traditional

as well as Krushnas Ashtakvarga, though all is same.,

just that he has specialised in this method.

 

regards to the practical significance of Kp, I have

been successful through only this system, in providing

relief in answers to most of the querists coming to me

for predictions. I have also demonstrated few methods in

the last week which come from KP only, for which one need

not learn the whole system of Kp, but just pick the best

parts and apply to re-confirm in ones own method of

approach to breaking a query into a solution.

For instance my post on instant predictive method, can

be re-confirmed with ones chart, and the marriage date

may be confirmed to what one arrives at, after making many

calculations and doing lots of study on the chart.

 

Thus I am looking for progressive predictive astrology,

which helps, and not pushes

one into inconclusive debates and waste of time or efforts.

 

Time is short, instead of talking to one who is thirsty,

I would prefer first to give him a glass of water, and then

ask him, what he would prefer, tea, coffee or cold drink ?

 

best wishes,

Bhaskar.

 

 

 

, Ratnaakar <namra_nivedan wrote:

>

> Dear Bhaskar ji,

> What do you want to say? To know it is really difficult.God knows

better.Ok leave it and follows that you like.Truly Nakshtra is the

essential and commanding part of Vedic astrology.Henceforth what is

the significance of KP?

>

> Ratnaakar

>

>

> Bhaskar <bhaskar_jyotish wrote:

> Dear Ratnakarji,

>

> Aspects 3 from Rashi,3 from Navamsha - is only one

> story from the monthly magazine Chandamama.

> You have to read the whole Magazine to say, that I

> have read this months Chandamama.

>

> Talking about 6 aspects. How they are

> to be used ?

> Example-

> If You find that the 4th House

> and Lord is afflicted in the Rashi Chart.

> You check the same in Navamsha by watching the

> aspect of Saturn on the 4th house in Navamsha

> or the Navamsha Lord or on the moon.

> And if there is good aspect on thse,by

> Saturn, then you can conclude Sanyasa Yoga

> or detachment or going away from the house,

> when you talk of Saturn or moon or 4th house

> effects.

>

> I am not sayiing that You or anyone should accept,

> aspects in Navamsha, I am only saying that do not

> tell anyone, not to see aspects in the Varga Charts.

> Let everyone follow what works with them.

>

> The 3 stalwarts, were all doing Kp system, by

> the way, must be news for you, they made good

> predictions only by using the KP system.

> Now if you ask me How can You say this?

> Then KP system is nothing but the nakshatra

> part of Vedic astrology, which all of these great

> people were following.

>

> Roti would remain Roti anyway. If You make it

> fat and burn it in the Oven instead of a tava

> and put vegetable and cheese on it and serve, the

> moderns would call it Pizza. But I still call it

> a fat Roti being sold for Rs.40-80 per piece.

>

> Therefore the modern people call this the Kp

> system.which is just the Nakshatra approach

> to predictions.

>

> Blind following is wrong, and so is blind

> rejection of others views.

>

> best wishes,

> Bhaskar.

>

>

>

>

> , Ratnaakar wrote:

> >

> > Dear Bhaskar,

> > If saturn is placed in any chart in 6th house and sitted 12th

> house in Navmansa on different sign.So according to you now we should

> check its six aspecting, three by chart and other three by Namamansa

> amazing.We can check the strength of saturn by placement in Navmansa

> only in such case but how can we access its aspecting that will give

> different results as per aforesaid placements surely.

> > KP system was not accepted fully by the said stalwarts to whom you

> have mentioned. Therefore should we also not accept the same

> system?Plz check the theory again with open mind.Remember the future K

> N Rao,B V Raman or Santhanam might be born among us.Blind following

> becomes always not good.You should try your own VIVEK.Sorry but this

> is my last mail about the same subject.

> >

> > Ratnaakar

> >

> >

> > Bhaskar wrote:

> > Dear Ratnakaar,

> >

> > If Navamsha Chart is also one of the Vargas, then

> > aspects have been observed by Santhanam,BV Raman

> > and KN Rao,all of these three, which I have proved

> > through quoting the relevant page numbers from their

> > books, and not not once but many times,

> >

> > I request you to comment on their use of aspects

> > while charting example charts and explaining to the

> > readers in their books.

> >

> > Why would they do so, if there was no base

> > or substance in this ?

> >

> > regards,

> > Bhaskar.

> >

> >

> > , Ratnaakar wrote:

> > >

> > > Dear Mr. Pradeep,

> > > You are absolutely right that aspecting of planets are not applied

> > in Vargas at all except in Janam or Chandra laganas but no one will

> > try to accept it here because others are adamant on their fake

> > egoism.So why do you waste your energy and time on baseless matter?Plz

> > leave this topic and let them live in fools paradise.

> > >

> > > Ratnaakar

> > >

> > >

> > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > Dear Kursija ji

> > >

> > > This was discussed.Kaujesthamshe.

> > > There is one technique where the navamshas are counted.For example

> > > the 7th amsha of Lagna.If this amsha falls in the kshethra of Mars

> > > and is aspected by saturn the said yoga results.Dashadhyayi

explains

> > > Kaujesthamshe.

> > >

> > > Aspects are always w.r to Rashi.All the confusion arises as the

sign

> > > corresponding to 7th amsha of Lagna is same as 7th house in

> > > navamsha.When you think of Karakamsha examples too,consideration

from

> > > rashi or navamshas corresponds to the same sign.But

> > > Paparkshe,Bhrigwonkaraka Varge etc are helping us.

> > >

> > > If you see the example of Queen Elisaeth - it is pretty clear.We

will

> > > not get may examples out of coincidence - do we.

> > >

> > > Sages do not mention anything without a purpose.So is the case with

> > > Swamsha/Navamsha Lagna Rajayoga.We have seen a false interpretation

> > > of this yoga and we have seen many individuals coming and saying

why

> > > i am not a Raja.We will take up this exercise and see why this

> > > interpretation has failed.Sage is correct.Our interpretation

matters.

> > >

> > > My examples are only for the members who are curious to know the

> > > Truth.Others can ignore.

> > >

> > > Regds

> > > Pradeep

> > >

> > > , " S.C. Kursija "

> > > wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Dear members,

> > > > I feel the discussion has taken an ugly turn. It is

> > > > not going to serve our purpose of coming to the

> > > > conclusion that one should use aspect in varga or not.

> > > > I have struck a shlok XXI chapter XVI on Satrijataka

> > > > in Jatak Parijat by Vaidhanatha while writing a write

> > > > up on Marital discord, separation and divorce and

> > > > planets.

> > > > It states that " when 7th house in Navamsha belong to

> > > > Mars and aspected by Saturn, she will have diseases of

> > > > womb " So aspect in varga has been in use in classics

> > > > also, particularly Navamsha.

> > > >

> > > > --- vijayadas_pradeep

> > > > wrote:

> > > >

> > > > > Dear Bhaskar ji

> > > > >

> > > > > Kindly leave me alone.I just replied to a mail from

> > > > > Prafulla ji.

> > > > >

> > > > > Regds

> > > > > Pradeep

> > > > >

> > > > > , " Bhaskar "

> > > > >

> > > > > wrote:

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Dear Shri Pradeepji,

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Again the same thing has been started.

> > > > > > You are quoting one side of Shri Santhanamji,

> > > > > > whereas I have already priovided few references

> > > > > from his

> > > > > > own publications, in the previous part of the

> > > > > thread, where

> > > > > > he has clearly used aspects in vargas, and so has

> > > > > BV Ramanji

> > > > > > and so has Mr. KN rao. And I have provided proof

> > > > > from all these

> > > > > > authors publications. So who has done more reading

> > > > > actually among

> > > > > > the members present here ?

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Regardless of the proofs which I have given, where

> > > > > all

> > > > > > these authors have used aspects in Vargas,

> > > > > > If You notice all my messages, posts, I have

> > > > > nowhere

> > > > > > mentioned that they were right and now here

> > > > > mentioned that

> > > > > > they were wrong.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > So what does that mean ?

> > > > > >

> > > > > > It means that I am just following their

> > > > > commentaries and

> > > > > > explanations without any bias in my mind, and

> > > > > without

> > > > > > any pre-set thinking'that they are wrong or right.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > And thats how we are all supposed to behave.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > And those who say that they are wrong,

> > > > > > have to prove this conclusively with their

> > > > > logic-tarka-

> > > > > > pramana, or else just stay quiet, like we do.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > regards,

> > > > > > Bhaskar.

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > > -- In ,

> > > > > " vijayadas_pradeep "

> > > > > > wrote:

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Dear Shri Tarun

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > I do not want to tell anything.I can only make a

> > > > > sleeping person

> > > > > > > awake not a pretender.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Neither i do what is longitudinal nor i know how

> > > > > to draw varga

> > > > > charts

> > > > > > > as proposed by your group.Neither does Late

> > > > > Santhanam.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > For your kind information it is not western.Ask

> > > > > your friend who

> > > > > gave

> > > > > > > you kha what is Sphuta.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Then show him the following -

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > " 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. "

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Pls ask him if this earlier chapter is from BPHS

> > > > > or western.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Dear friend ,you are young.Kindly verify things

> > > > > before you

> > > > > talk.It is

> > > > > > > not an advise -But always do the homework before

> > > > > we present

> > > > > something.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Regds

> > > > > > > Pradeep

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > , " Tarun "

> > > > > wrote:

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Dear Pradeep ji

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > u said -

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Late Sri R. Santhanam states in his book

> > > > > Deva Keralam that "

> > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > aspect as a rule should be seen in rashi

> > > > > chart only, not in

> > > > > > > navamsha

> > > > > > > > > and other charts, for aspects emanate only

> > > > > by longitudinal

> > > > > > > > > distances " .

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Can u tell me what are longitudinal aspects

> > > > > ???

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > i hoep they are the same as in western

> > > > > astrology ( 30,45, 60 ,

> > > > > 90 ,

> > > > > > > > 120 , 135, 150 , 180) and minor aspects like

> > > > > 36 , 72 etc.)

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Do u know how varga charts are made...how D-9

> > > > > is made. if yes

> > > > > then

> > > > > > > > you yourself disagree with your views.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > late santhanam did not mention of Pluto in

> > > > > BPHS..but he has

> > > > > used in

> > > > > > > > artcile as quoted by Prafulla ji. so what does

> > > > > it imply? can we

> > > > > say

> > > > > > > > that - Late Santhnam was against using Pluto -

> > > > > as his BPHS

> > > > > > > > translation talks only for 9 grahas

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > I hope you will reply to each of my line

> > > > > asked. without

> > > > > skipping

> > > > > > > > anything.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Warm Regards,

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Tarun

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > , " Prafulla

> > > > > Gang "

> > > > > > > > wrote:

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Dear Shri Pradeep ji

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Now you mean to say that - opposition of

> > > > > planets in D chakra

> > > > > will

> > > > > > > > > affect without aspects? how? guru in lagan

> > > > > in D9 and venus in

> > > > > 7th

> > > > > > > in

> > > > > > > > > D9 - how will they affect together, without

> > > > > considering this

> > > > > > > > > association through aspects.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > You again twisted.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > I asked you one basic thing. If you do not

> > > > > approve late

> > > > > > > Santhanam's

> > > > > > > > D

> > > > > > > > > chakra interpretation model - then why are

> > > > > you referring his

> > > > > one

> > > > > > > > > statement on aspects in BPHS (overlooking

> > > > > his own case

> > > > > studies in

> > > > > > > > > TOA). Do you mean to say that since you

> > > > > accept his one

> > > > > statement

> > > > > > > on

> > > > > > > > > aspects, do you accept this theory on D

> > > > > chakra (if they

> > > > > exist,

> > > > > > > > whether

> > > > > > > > > combination works in D chakra etc). If his D

> > > > > chakra theory is

> > > > > not

> > > > > > > > > accepted by you, then is it not selective

> > > > > and misquote.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > The contention is not only on Aspects, but

> > > > > on the existence

> > > > > of D

> > > > > > > > > chakra itself.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Or I understand now that - you have agreed

> > > > > that - D chakra

> > > > > exists,

> > > > > > > > > Combinations can be considered in D charts.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > If you are rejecting his D chakra opinion -

> > > > > then please do

> > > > > not

> > > > > > > quote

> > > > > > > > > him for aspects, without reading his

> > > > > articles and case

> > > > > studies -

> > > > > > > > which

> > > > > > > > > are available in public domain. It will be

> > > > > injustice with

> > > > > learned

> > > > > > > > > soul. Forget about us, but do respect a

> > > > > learned soul.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > regards / Prafulla

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > ,

> > > > > " vijayadas_pradeep "

> > > > > > > > > wrote:

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Dear Prafulla ji

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Every ''Navamsha chart'' will have atleast

> > > > > one

> > > > > opposition.If

> > > > > > > they

> > > > > > > > > > are in opposition they should ''aspect''

> > > > > as per you.Also as

> > > > > per

> > > > > > > > you

> > > > > > > > > > Late Santhanam too felt ,if in opposition

> > > > > they

> > > > > will ''aspect''.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > So you mean to say -

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > While Translating BPHS

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > 1)Late Santhanam was unaware about this

> > > > > simple ''opposition''

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > 2)Late Santhanam for chumma some fun

> > > > > mentioned so during

> > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > translation

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Either of the above should be ''true'' -

> > > > > else why should

> > > > > the

> > > > > > > BPHS

> > > > > > > > > > translator say as mentioned below.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Late Sri R. Santhanam states in his book

> > > > > Deva Keralam

> > > > > that "

> > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > aspect as a rule should be seen in rashi

> > > > > chart only, not in

> > > > > > > > navamsha

> > > > > > > > > > and other charts, for aspects emanate only

> > > > > by longitudinal

> > > > > > > > > > distances " .

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > This will be my last reply for your

> > > > > misquote on Late

> > > > > > > Santhanam's

> > > > > > > > > > view on aspects in varga chakras.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Regds

> > > > > > > > > > Pradeep

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >