Ishta Devatha - To Vijayadas and others who want to understand him

[Guest guest]

Dear Vijayadas specifically and others,

You have to be much more clear in your presentation. I do not think

you are conveying what you want to people at all (but I understand

because I've read your past posts, and I'll elaborate on that in a

little bit). In fact, I bet you most of them dont understand what you

are trying to emphasize at all. You said first " planets can never

conjunct in a Navamsha " . Then you asked the seemingly contradictory

question " can anyone give me an example of how planets conjunct in a

Navamsha " and Phyllis readily obliged by giving an example, and then

you said this is the exact answer you are looking for. So it actually

looks like you have been given a piece of information that you didnt

know. It doesn't look like your point has been proven because you did

get an example where it was shown that planets can conjunct in a

Navamsha.

 

 

What Pradeep is trying to emphasise is that if for example in D-1

Mars is in Gemini Navamsa in Aries, and Saturn is in Gemini Navamsa

in Gemini, then the statement " Mars and Saturn are conjunct in

Navamsa " is an invalid statement, because in Rasi (or he would say

Kshetra, I think) they are not conjunct and do not even aspect each

other. He disputes the creation of Navamsa charts and Dasamsa charts

etc, because he believes that while discovering the varga

(subdivisional placement) of a planet is SUPPORTED in the classics,

the CHARTING of all the grahas varga positions is NOT. He insists

that it is only the CHARTING of grahas varga positions(for example,

you CHART the Navamsa by taking the Navamsa of the Lagna as the " 1st

house " of the Navamsa CHART, and in a similar way insert all the

other planets into the " houses " of the Navamsa CHART) that gives rise

to the, in HIS OPINION unfounded (in classics), notion of

conjunction, aspects and " houses " in the varga " CHARTS " . In short,

his opinion of vargas is that each is a distinct type of relationship

between Grahas and Rasis that emphasizes a certain aspect of the

horoscope. He concludes that there is only one horoscope chart, which

is the Kshetra chart (I think), known as the D-1 in this group.

Furthermore, he believes that it if you comprehend and to

his crisp interpretation, your confusions of Karakamsha vs

Karakamshaka will subside. Because, " 12th from Karakamsha " can only

mean 12th HOUSE from Karakamsha. Since HOUSES are a property of

CHARTS, and the only chart is the D-1 chart, this statement " 12th

from Karakamsha " means the 12th house from the SIGN of the Navamsha

of the Atmakaraka in the D-1 chart. So if your AK is Sun in Libra

Rasi in Gemini Navamsha, then your Karakamsa is Gemini. Simply look

at the 12th from Gemini, namely Taurus, in the only chart there is

i.e. D-1.

 

It is a compelling theory, and Vijayadas will readily accept the

provision of any verse in any classic that UNAMBIGUOUSLY state that

grahas varga positions should be CHARTED. He claims there are no such

verses, and if you believe in the principle of Occam/Ockham's Razor

(look it up in Wikipedia if you dont know - this principle was

frequently used by Einstein), you are required to take the simplest

interpretation, which is the one he provides.

 

Hope I have accurately represented your true thoughts Vijayadas

(these are not mine, but I couldnt help interjecting, you've posted

so many times now). Please correct/excuse me if I havent. I threw in

Occam's Razor to provide you with the necessary " last part " of your

reasoning process.

 

Sundeep

 

 

 

 

 

 

sohamsa , " vijayadas_pradeep "

<vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

>

> Dear shri Phyllis

>

> This is the exact answer,that i was looking for.Thanks for

understanding

> my points.Thus conjunction is when two planets are physically

> conjunct.It can happen only when two planets are conjunct in the

rashi

> chakra.I have mentioned this clearly in my mails,in the past -

Planets in

> navamsha can conjunct only if they are so in the rashi chakra.

> In the other cases,they are samandhas.

>

> Kind Regds

> Pradeep

>

> sohamsa , Phyllis Chubb <phyllischubb@> wrote:

> >

> > Dear Pradee,

> >

> > It is possible for two planets to fall into the same house and

even

> the same

> > pada in the navamsha chart. When this happens why would it not be

> accurate to

> > say the planets were conjoined in the navamsa?

> >

> > Regards,

> >

> > Phyllis

> >

> >

> >

> > _____

> >

> > sohamsa [sohamsa ] On

> Behalf Of

> > vijayadas_pradeep

> > Thursday, June 15, 2006 12:06 PM

> > sohamsa

> > Ishta Devatha

> >

> >

> >

> > Dear Respected memers

> >

> > Regarding,Ishta devatha,planet having amsha in the 12th from

> karakamsha

> > and placed in the 12th from karakamsha are not the same(But planet

> > lording 12th from karakamsha will always be the same).If we

understand

> > this difference our doubts will be cleared.Sage just said 12th

from

> > karakamsha-never said planet having amsha in the 12th from

> > karakamsha.12th from karakamsha in ''navsmha chart'' is an

assumption

> > and others are free to hold that view.

> > Also two planets can never ''conjunct'' in a navamsha(making ishta

> > devatha formulas in navamsha wrong).Planet A and Planet B will

have

> just

> > one position at a point in time.Vargas are pointing to different

> > relative backdrop/canvas.When we see two planets having amsha in

the

> > same sign,they are having sambandha(Think of a planety having

> sambandha

> > with houses lorded by it,inspite of placement elsewhere).If

anyone in

> > this list can explain how two planets can conjunct in navamsha,i

am

> > ready to accept their understanding.

> >

> > Thanks

> > Pradee

> >

>

[Guest guest]

Namaste Dear Sundeep jiThanks a lot for making others understand my intentions.As you have rightly said one may very well get an impression that,Sri Chubb was mentioning something,which is new for me.But those who have read my posts in the past,will understand it properly.For example in my mails to Sarvashree Narasimharao & SanjayRath ,i have stressed many a times that,two planets can be conjunct in navamsha,only if they are physically conjunct( Rashi Chakra).Many of us may mistake 2 planets in a navamsha sign as conjunctions.Similarly many apply aspects on top of vargamshas,which are clearly against fundamentals,as per my understanding.Conjunction is proximity of two planets.It is exclusive of vargas.Rashi drishti is relation between Rashis.What we see as vargas are not another set of Rashis.We have just 9 planets and 12 Rashis.(Same individual has roles as father,husband,officer,sportsman,son etc).Similarly,grahas relates to different rashis in different ways.In Kshethra it is PHYSICALLY present.(This point is very very important).It has a structure while sookshma aspects like prana does not have structure - they influence.Divisions within a Rashi(eg Nvamsha),helps us to map the Rashi on to which a graha is having sambandha apart from its Physical presence.Now without naming conventions and jargons let us come to the main point- Division of SPACE into 12 Rashis is the basic canvas for bhava niroopana.They form 12 Bhavas as well as 12 Limbs.Please dont mistake this as D-1.Vargas are classes of ANY Rashi(30 degree sector-example Aries Rashi),while the cHART is 360degree SPACE and 12 SIGNS.Kshethra the first division ie considering one Rashi in full represents physique.Example:Classics say -If Lagna is in the Kshethra of Kuja so and so are the results.As Kshethra and Rashi are of the same span,we may very well misunderstand the concept.Sages are very wise and they use the same variable name to represent many to minimize the number of parameters.The basic canvas is not for physical existence alone but for each and every aspect pertaining to a Jataka.We have to read numerous vargas attained by a planet, while thinking of any Bhava. Thus tenth lord from chandra/lagna and dignity of their navamsha dispositors will give us better clue.Navamsha is important as they represent bhagya as well as prana influence of grahas(Dashadhyayi).As you have rightly said simpler interpretations are very powerful.Principles are never complex.We make them complex.If we study any subject without properly undersdtanding the fundamentals,it turns out to be a complex subject.But if the studies are systematic and foundations are sound,nothing can be complex.For a subject like Jyotish NEVER deviate from what the sages say.Our logic is NOTHING.Others better learned can hold different view.Goel ji kindly read this as my understanding and reply for your views.Thanks a lotPradeepsohamsa , "vedicastrostudent" <vedicastrostudent wrote:>> Dear Vijayadas specifically and others,> You have to be much more clear in your presentation. I do not think > you are conveying what you want to people at all (but I understand > because I've read your past posts, and I'll elaborate on that in a > little bit). In fact, I bet you most of them dont understand what you > are trying to emphasize at all. You said first "planets can never > conjunct in a Navamsha". Then you asked the seemingly contradictory > question "can anyone give me an example of how planets conjunct in a > Navamsha" and Phyllis readily obliged by giving an example, and then > you said this is the exact answer you are looking for. So it actually > looks like you have been given a piece of information that you didnt > know. It doesn't look like your point has been proven because you did > get an example where it was shown that planets can conjunct in a > Navamsha.> > > What Pradeep is trying to emphasise is that if for example in D-1 > Mars is in Gemini Navamsa in Aries, and Saturn is in Gemini Navamsa > in Gemini, then the statement "Mars and Saturn are conjunct in > Navamsa" is an invalid statement, because in Rasi (or he would say > Kshetra, I think) they are not conjunct and do not even aspect each > other. He disputes the creation of Navamsa charts and Dasamsa charts > etc, because he believes that while discovering the varga> (subdivisional placement) of a planet is SUPPORTED in the classics, > the CHARTING of all the grahas varga positions is NOT. He insists > that it is only the CHARTING of grahas varga positions(for example, > you CHART the Navamsa by taking the Navamsa of the Lagna as the "1st > house" of the Navamsa CHART, and in a similar way insert all the > other planets into the "houses" of the Navamsa CHART) that gives rise > to the, in HIS OPINION unfounded (in classics), notion of > conjunction, aspects and "houses" in the varga "CHARTS". In short, > his opinion of vargas is that each is a distinct type of relationship > between Grahas and Rasis that emphasizes a certain aspect of the > horoscope. He concludes that there is only one horoscope chart, which > is the Kshetra chart (I think), known as the D-1 in this group. > Furthermore, he believes that it if you comprehend and to > his crisp interpretation, your confusions of Karakamsha vs > Karakamshaka will subside. Because, "12th from Karakamsha" can only > mean 12th HOUSE from Karakamsha. Since HOUSES are a property of > CHARTS, and the only chart is the D-1 chart, this statement "12th > from Karakamsha" means the 12th house from the SIGN of the Navamsha > of the Atmakaraka in the D-1 chart. So if your AK is Sun in Libra > Rasi in Gemini Navamsha, then your Karakamsa is Gemini. Simply look > at the 12th from Gemini, namely Taurus, in the only chart there is > i.e. D-1.> > It is a compelling theory, and Vijayadas will readily accept the > provision of any verse in any classic that UNAMBIGUOUSLY state that > grahas varga positions should be CHARTED. He claims there are no such > verses, and if you believe in the principle of Occam/Ockham's Razor > (look it up in Wikipedia if you dont know - this principle was > frequently used by Einstein), you are required to take the simplest > interpretation, which is the one he provides.> > Hope I have accurately represented your true thoughts Vijayadas > (these are not mine, but I couldnt help interjecting, you've posted > so many times now). Please correct/excuse me if I havent. I threw in > Occam's Razor to provide you with the necessary "last part" of your > reasoning process.> > Sundeep> > > > > > > sohamsa , "vijayadas_pradeep" > vijayadas_pradeep@ wrote:> >> > Dear shri Phyllis> > > > This is the exact answer,that i was looking for.Thanks for > understanding> > my points.Thus conjunction is when two planets are physically> > conjunct.It can happen only when two planets are conjunct in the > rashi> > chakra.I have mentioned this clearly in my mails,in the past -> Planets in> > navamsha can conjunct only if they are so in the rashi chakra.> > In the other cases,they are samandhas.> > > > Kind Regds> > Pradeep> > > > sohamsa , Phyllis Chubb <phyllischubb@> wrote:> > >> > > Dear Pradee,> > >> > > It is possible for two planets to fall into the same house and > even> > the same> > > pada in the navamsha chart. When this happens why would it not be> > accurate to> > > say the planets were conjoined in the navamsa?> > >> > > Regards,> > >> > > Phyllis> > >> > >> > >> > > _____> > >> > > sohamsa [sohamsa ] On> > Behalf Of> > > vijayadas_pradeep> > > Thursday, June 15, 2006 12:06 PM> > > sohamsa > > > Ishta Devatha> > >> > >> > >> > > Dear Respected memers> > >> > > Regarding,Ishta devatha,planet having amsha in the 12th from> > karakamsha> > > and placed in the 12th from karakamsha are not the same(But planet> > > lording 12th from karakamsha will always be the same).If we > understand> > > this difference our doubts will be cleared.Sage just said 12th > from> > > karakamsha-never said planet having amsha in the 12th from> > > karakamsha.12th from karakamsha in ''navsmha chart'' is an > assumption> > > and others are free to hold that view.> > > Also two planets can never ''conjunct'' in a navamsha(making ishta> > > devatha formulas in navamsha wrong).Planet A and Planet B will > have> > just> > > one position at a point in time.Vargas are pointing to different> > > relative backdrop/canvas.When we see two planets having amsha in > the> > > same sign,they are having sambandha(Think of a planety having> > sambandha> > > with houses lorded by it,inspite of placement elsewhere).If > anyone in> > > this list can explain how two planets can conjunct in navamsha,i > am> > > ready to accept their understanding.> > >> > > Thanks> > > Pradee> > >> >>

[Guest guest]

Dear Pradeep ji

 

Planetary conjunctions / aspects etc (let us call them mutual associations)

basically, channelize the mutual energies / synergy between planets (good or

bad, depending upon strengths and functional role for specific lagna). It is

also be logical to consider each bhava as lagna for that specific bhava in

question. So, if in D charts, why not to read these planetary associations as

mutual energy channelizing factors.

 

Yes, I followed the thread on this between you / Narasimha.

 

In fact, rashi kshetra is also an imaginary kshetra..it is constellation, which

is the real kshetra ?? Most panchang makers rely more on constellations than

rashi!!!

 

regards / Prafulla Gang

 

Men always want to be a woman's first love - women like to be a man's last

romance.

 

 

>

> vijayadas_pradeep

> Sun, 18 Jun 2006 18:54:45 -0000

> sohamsa

> Re: Ishta Devatha - To Vijayadas and others who want

> to understand him

>

> Namaste Dear Sundeep ji

>

> Thanks a lot for making others understand my intentions.

>

> As you have rightly said one may very well get an impression that,Sri

> Chubb was mentioning something,which is new for me.

> But those who have read my posts in the past,will understand it

> properly.For example in my mails to Sarvashree Narasimharao & SanjayRath

> ,i have stressed many a times that,two planets can be conjunct in

> navamsha,only if they are physically conjunct( Rashi Chakra).

>

> Many of us may mistake 2 planets in a navamsha sign as

> conjunctions.Similarly many apply aspects on top of vargamshas,which are

> clearly against fundamentals,as per my understanding.

>

> Conjunction is proximity of two planets.It is exclusive of vargas.Rashi

> drishti is relation between Rashis.What we see as vargas are not another

> set of Rashis.We have just 9 planets and 12 Rashis.(Same individual has

> roles as father,husband,officer,sportsman,son etc).

>

> Similarly,grahas relates to different rashis in different ways.In

> Kshethra it is PHYSICALLY present.(This point is very very important).It

> has a structure while sookshma aspects like prana does not have

> structure - they influence.Divisions within a Rashi(eg Nvamsha),helps us

> to map the Rashi on to which a graha is having sambandha apart from its

> Physical presence.

>

> Now without naming conventions and jargons let us come to the main

> point- Division of SPACE into 12 Rashis is the basic canvas for bhava

> niroopana.They form 12 Bhavas as well as 12 Limbs.Please dont mistake

> this as D-1.Vargas are classes of ANY Rashi(30 degree sector-example

> Aries Rashi),while the cHART is 360degree SPACE and 12 SIGNS.

> Kshethra the first division ie considering one Rashi in full represents

> physique.

>

> Example:Classics say -If Lagna is in the Kshethra of Kuja so and so are

> the results.As Kshethra and Rashi are of the same span,we may very well

> misunderstand the concept.Sages are very wise and they use the same

> variable name to represent many to minimize the number of parameters.The

> basic canvas is not for physical existence alone but for each and every

> aspect pertaining to a Jataka.We have to read numerous vargas attained

> by a planet, while thinking of any Bhava.

> Thus tenth lord from chandra/lagna and dignity of their navamsha

> dispositors will give us better clue.Navamsha is important as they

> represent bhagya as well as prana influence of grahas(Dashadhyayi).

>

> As you have rightly said simpler interpretations are very

> powerful.Principles are never complex.We make them complex.If we study

> any subject without properly undersdtanding the fundamentals,it turns

> out to be a complex subject.But if the studies are systematic and

> foundations are sound,nothing can be complex.For a subject like Jyotish

> NEVER deviate from what the sages say.Our logic is NOTHING.

>

> Others better learned can hold different view.

> Goel ji kindly read this as my understanding and reply for your views.

>

> Thanks a lot

> Pradeep

> sohamsa , " vedicastrostudent "

> <vedicastrostudent wrote:

>>

>> Dear Vijayadas specifically and others,

>> You have to be much more clear in your presentation. I do not think

>> you are conveying what you want to people at all (but I understand

>> because I've read your past posts, and I'll elaborate on that in a

>> little bit). In fact, I bet you most of them dont understand what you

>> are trying to emphasize at all. You said first " planets can never

>> conjunct in a Navamsha " . Then you asked the seemingly contradictory

>> question " can anyone give me an example of how planets conjunct in a

>> Navamsha " and Phyllis readily obliged by giving an example, and then

>> you said this is the exact answer you are looking for. So it actually

>> looks like you have been given a piece of information that you didnt

>> know. It doesn't look like your point has been proven because you did

>> get an example where it was shown that planets can conjunct in a

>> Navamsha.

>>

>>

>> What Pradeep is trying to emphasise is that if for example in D-1

>> Mars is in Gemini Navamsa in Aries, and Saturn is in Gemini Navamsa

>> in Gemini, then the statement " Mars and Saturn are conjunct in

>> Navamsa " is an invalid statement, because in Rasi (or he would say

>> Kshetra, I think) they are not conjunct and do not even aspect each

>> other. He disputes the creation of Navamsa charts and Dasamsa charts

>> etc, because he believes that while discovering the varga

>> (subdivisional placement) of a planet is SUPPORTED in the classics,

>> the CHARTING of all the grahas varga positions is NOT. He insists

>> that it is only the CHARTING of grahas varga positions(for example,

>> you CHART the Navamsa by taking the Navamsa of the Lagna as the " 1st

>> house " of the Navamsa CHART, and in a similar way insert all the

>> other planets into the " houses " of the Navamsa CHART) that gives rise

>> to the, in HIS OPINION unfounded (in classics), notion of

>> conjunction, aspects and " houses " in the varga " CHARTS " . In short,

>> his opinion of vargas is that each is a distinct type of relationship

>> between Grahas and Rasis that emphasizes a certain aspect of the

>> horoscope. He concludes that there is only one horoscope chart, which

>> is the Kshetra chart (I think), known as the D-1 in this group.

>> Furthermore, he believes that it if you comprehend and to

>> his crisp interpretation, your confusions of Karakamsha vs

>> Karakamshaka will subside. Because, " 12th from Karakamsha " can only

>> mean 12th HOUSE from Karakamsha. Since HOUSES are a property of

>> CHARTS, and the only chart is the D-1 chart, this statement " 12th

>> from Karakamsha " means the 12th house from the SIGN of the Navamsha

>> of the Atmakaraka in the D-1 chart. So if your AK is Sun in Libra

>> Rasi in Gemini Navamsha, then your Karakamsa is Gemini. Simply look

>> at the 12th from Gemini, namely Taurus, in the only chart there is

>> i.e. D-1.

>>

>> It is a compelling theory, and Vijayadas will readily accept the

>> provision of any verse in any classic that UNAMBIGUOUSLY state that

>> grahas varga positions should be CHARTED. He claims there are no such

>> verses, and if you believe in the principle of Occam/Ockham's Razor

>> (look it up in Wikipedia if you dont know - this principle was

>> frequently used by Einstein), you are required to take the simplest

>> interpretation, which is the one he provides.

>>

>> Hope I have accurately represented your true thoughts Vijayadas

>> (these are not mine, but I couldnt help interjecting, you've posted

>> so many times now). Please correct/excuse me if I havent. I threw in

>> Occam's Razor to provide you with the necessary " last part " of your

>> reasoning process.

>>

>> Sundeep

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>> sohamsa , " vijayadas_pradeep "

>> vijayadas_pradeep@ wrote:

>>>

>>> Dear shri Phyllis

>>>

>>> This is the exact answer,that i was looking for.Thanks for

>> understanding

>>> my points.Thus conjunction is when two planets are physically

>>> conjunct.It can happen only when two planets are conjunct in the

>> rashi

>>> chakra.I have mentioned this clearly in my mails,in the past -

>> Planets in

>>> navamsha can conjunct only if they are so in the rashi chakra.

>>> In the other cases,they are samandhas.

>>>

>>> Kind Regds

>>> Pradeep

>>>

>>> sohamsa , Phyllis Chubb <phyllischubb@> wrote:

>>>>

>>>> Dear Pradee,

>>>>

>>>> It is possible for two planets to fall into the same house and

>> even

>>> the same

>>>> pada in the navamsha chart. When this happens why would it not be

>>> accurate to

>>>> say the planets were conjoined in the navamsa?

>>>>

>>>> Regards,

>>>>

>>>> Phyllis

>>>>

>>>>

>>>>

>>>> _____

>>>>

>>>> sohamsa [sohamsa ] On

>>> Behalf Of

>>>> vijayadas_pradeep

>>>> Thursday, June 15, 2006 12:06 PM

>>>> sohamsa

>>>> Ishta Devatha

>>>>

>>>>

>>>>

>>>> Dear Respected memers

>>>>

>>>> Regarding,Ishta devatha,planet having amsha in the 12th from

>>> karakamsha

>>>> and placed in the 12th from karakamsha are not the same(But planet

>>>> lording 12th from karakamsha will always be the same).If we

>> understand

>>>> this difference our doubts will be cleared.Sage just said 12th

>> from

>>>> karakamsha-never said planet having amsha in the 12th from

>>>> karakamsha.12th from karakamsha in ''navsmha chart'' is an

>> assumption

>>>> and others are free to hold that view.

>>>> Also two planets can never ''conjunct'' in a navamsha(making ishta

>>>> devatha formulas in navamsha wrong).Planet A and Planet B will

>> have

>>> just

>>>> one position at a point in time.Vargas are pointing to different

>>>> relative backdrop/canvas.When we see two planets having amsha in

>> the

>>>> same sign,they are having sambandha(Think of a planety having

>>> sambandha

>>>> with houses lorded by it,inspite of placement elsewhere).If

>> anyone in

>>>> this list can explain how two planets can conjunct in navamsha,i

>> am

>>>> ready to accept their understanding.

>>>>

>>>> Thanks

>>>> Pradee

>>>>

>>>

>>