Ishta Devatha - To Vijayadas and others /Prafulla ji

[Guest guest]

Namaste Prafulla ji

 

Kindly address me without a ji.

 

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

mutual energy channelizing factors.

 

(Pradeep)This is absolutely a good understanding.Then our approach

towards varga sambandhas will totally change.

The rashi in which Atmakaraka has navamsha sambandha becomes a

lagna(Karakamsha Lagna).A planet placed in the 10th from this is not the

same as a planet having amsha in the 10th from.

Regarding Drishti - One planet cannot begin aspect(starting point) from

a place where it is having sambandha.It can generate an aspect only from

where it is.

Regarding Conjuntion - Two planets are individually having influence on

a Rashi.

 

> >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!!!

 

(Pradeep)I did not mean rashi or navamshas as having structure/no

structure.It is the planetary relationship that denotes structure.For

example Kshethra sambandha is showing structure while navamsha sambandha

is showing Prana.Otherwise all are just SPACE divisions based on tattwa

sambandhas.Structure is a function of the avastha we are in.

 

Thanks

Pradeep

 

sohamsa , Prafulla Gang <jyotish wrote:

>

> 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

> >>>>

> >>>

> >>

>