Navamsha conjunction Apparant/Real -Rohini ji

[Guest guest]

Dear Rohini ji

I think without your permission i can add a ji:-)

If we arrange all the first vargas(Kshethras) it is exactly the same as Rashi chakra.Then what is the difference between, Rashi chakra and Kshehtra Sambandhas.

When we talk of Kshethra as a varga, it is just one division among numerous divisions.We are not thinking of any other divisions.

Example :Classical shlokas on Lagna lord in Kuja kshethra(irrespective of whether it is in Aries or Scorpio)giving similar results.(it is just one point and we have to consider numerous factors before arriving at a conclusion)

On the other hand,when we talk of Rashi chakra - It is the complete system with all the sambandhas a planet is having with numerous Rashis,done during Bhava niroopana.

Example:Lord of 5th house,Shani has attained Mesha navamsha,is aspected by natural malefic and maraka Kuja,and is in a Kroora shashtyamsha.He is also the lord of 22nd Drekkana and hence capable of bringing maraka results.The navamsha dispositor of shani ,Mars is combust,engaged in a planetary war and is also in a bad avastha.Thus we can say Shani is very weak.To add, Mars a maraka is having amsha in the 5th from lagna,making Putra bhava weak.

I have respect for the said astrologers,but those great souls may also explain to us the reson behind their conclusions as there is no Pramana supporting such.It is my personal opinion and you may follow your conscience.If learned souls can give better explanations i am ever prepeared to learn.

Can you justify Graha drishti in vargas other then Kshethtra.In rashi we need not take aspect as a property of varga,rather as a function of planetary placements,which is a common factor.

ThanksPradeep , "crystal pages" <jyotish_vani wrote:>> Pradeepji,> > I will drop the 'ji' if you will drop the same when you address me. > Even if I may be older, that is not a good enough reason to use the > suffix, 'ji'. In a sense we are all strangers and the 'ji' if used > has nothing to do with age but out of politeness when we speak with a > stranger or relatively a stranger.> > About kshetra -- yes that is a better way because then you would be > using exactly the term Parashara has used.> > Unfortunately, if kundali or chakra should only be used with the > rashi or kshetra varga (and not with the other vargas) -- if this is > what is being stated then nearly all the jyotishis, including Sri > Raman, Sri Rao, Sri Rath, Sri Chowdhri, Sri Bepin Behari and nearly > every jyotishi, eastern or western, modern of ancient have all been > sadly mistaken all their lives because they all used and advocated > use of varga chakras etc.> > I find this a very radical concept (not using vargas as chakras) > against that backdrop -- almost comparable to some of the very > different values of ayanamsha (as in 10-12 degrees away from Lahiri > or Raman).> > But this is a large tent, I suppose -- afterall zodiacs 23 degrees > apart can coexist and be effectively used it seems without nulling > out each other. So why not the framework you and your friends are > claiming.> > Peace,> > RR> > , "vijayadas_pradeep" > vijayadas_pradeep@ wrote:> >> > Dear Rohini ji> > > > I think i have requested that,you may kindly address me without a> > ji.It is more comfortable.> > What i have been saying in simple words is the following.Rashi > Chakra> > is not a varga.But every rashi contains set of vargas.The first > varga> > is a Rashi of 30 degree span.Inorder to understand this concept> > properly,i have been stressing to use the word Kshethra for the > first> > varga-though Rashi and Kshethra are synonymns.> > > > Thanks> > Pradeep> > > > , "crystal pages"> > <jyotish_vani@> wrote:> > >> > > Dear Pradeepji,> > > Your statement that rashi contains all amshas is astronomically > > > correct. What intrigues me, though, and I think this has been > voiced > > > by me earlier is that Parashara described rashi as one of the > vargas > > > and not a separate category which then comprises the remaining 15 > > > vargas as described in his BPHS. So I would like to think that > Sage > > > was pointing at some degree of (functional) similarity between > Rashi > > > and other amshas and not one subsumed by another.> > > > > > However, in my last email I was not referring to your view about > > > varga not being part of a chakra, or kundali (as a snake, if the > > > imagery is permitted), but the fact that you connected the > > > coincidence of rashi tattwas and amsha tattwas, etc. A similar > > > qualitative link arises between the vargottama state which links > > > three vargas: rashi, navamsha and drekkana.> > > > > > RR> > > > > > , "vijayadas_pradeep" > > > <vijayadas_pradeep@> wrote:> > > >> > > > Dear Rohini ji> > > > > > > > I always assumed,my mails as clear,and your mail counters my > beleif.> > > > So it means for the first time i am clear:-).> > > > Thanks for making me learn a lesson.Clear examples can drive > home > > > the> > > > points better.> > > > > > > > Dashadhyayi by Thalakkulathu bhattathiri ,says navamshas are> > > > navapranas.Trimshamashas are Chakshuraadi Pancha > > > Jnanendriyas.Saintly> > > > astrological scholars like Bhattathiri having traditional> > > > knowledge,will not write even a word ,which is unauthentic.> > > > > > > > Thus if we consider rashichakra as a serpent as Chandrashekhar > ji > > > has> > > > mentioned,every amsha is not another serpent.But they are the > > > various> > > > subtle essences which make the serpent active.Altogether we > call > > > them> > > > Rashi chakra.Kshethra /Navamsha etc points to individual > aspects.> > > > > > > > Shri K.N.Raojis understanding on Karakamsha is conmforming to> > > > principles of jyotish is my personal view.> > > > > > > > If we ask ,whether the monkey is longer or monkeys tail - > initially > > > we> > > > might be confused.But the vaild point -monkeys length is > inclusive > > > of> > > > its tail removes all our confusions.> > > > > > > > Similarly Rashi chakra is inclsuive of all the amshas.> > > > > > > > Thanks> > > > Pradeep> > > > > > > > , "crystal pages"> > > > <jyotish_vani@> wrote:> > > > >> > > > > Bravo Pradeep,> > > > > > > > > > I think you are on to something really significant -- now > said in > > > > > words -- shabda and vakkyaas!> > > > > > > > > > Navmasha being the chart view of reality from the tattwic > > > (essential) > > > > > dimension makes sense!> > > > > > > > > > So rashi for the physical, navamsha from the essence, the > spirit, > > > as > > > > > the 9th represents, -- kind of like what most of us really > > > > > understood, hopefully!> > > > > > > > > > RRsohamsa , "vijayadas_pradeep" <vijayadas_pradeep wrote:>> Dear Hari Namaste> > The kind of influence is different.And each infleuence has a specific> purpose.> 1)In Rashi both the planets apart from influencing the rashi are also> physically close.Thus combustion,planetary wars,yogas etc are possible.> 2)Through navamsha influence a planet from its position is influencing> another Rashi or the same(if vargottama).Thus two planets drawn in the> same sign in navamsha,are not placed there,but is related.Ofcourse> through these relations they can infleunce the said rashi.But they> cannot cast an aspect,nor they can have wars nor they can be combust.> > For example think of Karakamsha,it is the Rashi on to which Atmakaraka> is having amsha.This influence can make the said rashi a lagna.We can> find planets placed in the 10th,9th etc.planets having amsha in 10th> from the said place is totally different.If sages talk about such,we can> use it as well.> > The point is to understand the difference.> > Thanks> Pradeep> > sohamsa , "Jyotisa Shisya" achyutagaddi@> wrote:> >> > |om|> > Dear Pradeep, namaste> >> > Correct; so the perspective is that of bhuloka. Going by the example> of> > Mercury/Mars/Jupiter in the first degree of the respective agni tatva> signs,> > is it okay for me to say that from their respective positions in the> rasi> > chakra, these grahas exercise their influence on the same navamsa?> >> > If I define conjunction to mean that two or more planets exercise> their> > influence on the same rasi, what is wrong in saying the same about> planets> > conjunct in the same navamsa?> >> > best regards> > Hari> >> > On 6/23/06, vijayadas_pradeep vijayadas_pradeep@ wrote:> > >> > > Dear Hari Namaste> > >> > > Take planets Mercury/Mars/Jupiter -placed in the first degree of> > > Aries,Mars/Sag respectively.They are physically,(OK lets say> > > relative/apparent) present within the boundaries of> Aries/Leo/Sag.Distance> > > between Mars/Mercury is 120 degrees and> > > Mars/Jupiter is 240 degrees(Physical seperation).(Apparent need not> be a> > > concern as ,we follow the SAME benchmark(w.r to earth) for all Rashi> > > Chakra placements).> > >> > > Now let us take Navamsha.All the three are drawn as conjunct in> Aries.Doyou think it is an apparent conjunction as above?.Then what is> navamsha?> > > *First 3.2 degrees of any FIRY* sign is always *assigned to> Aries*.Any> > > planet placed within this degree span will relate to Aries as> > > navamsha.This is a *tattwa based sambandha* and *does not represent> any> > > placement*.On the other hand Rashi chakra placement is an> astronomically> > > measured value,adjusted for ayanamsha> correction.Distance/Conjunction in> > > Rashi chakra -points towards physical seperation/proximity while> navamsha> > > points towards sambandhas.It has no connection with distance.Hope> the> > > difference is clear this time.> > >> > > Thanks> > > Pradeep> > > sohamsa , "Jyotisa Shisya" achyutagaddi@> wrote:> > > >> > > > |om|> > > > Dear Pradeep, namaste> > > >> > > > M-W dictionary defines conjunction as given below:> > > >> > > > *con·junc·tion*> > > > Function: *noun*> > > > *1* *:* the act or an instance of conjoining *:* the state of> being> > > > conjoined *: *> > > > *2* *:* occurrence together in time or space *: *> > > > *3 a* *:* the apparent meeting or passing of two or more celestial> > > bodies in> > > > the same degree of the zodiac *b* *:* a configuration in which two> > > celestial> > > > bodies have their least apparent separation> > > > *4* *:* an uninflected linguistic form that joins together> sentences,> > > > clauses, phrases, or words> > > > *5* *:* a complex sentence in logic true if and only if each of> its> > > > components is true> > > >> > > > Note meaning (3a) above. It says apparent and not PHYSICAL.> Physically> > > > conjunct is a non-reality. Thus when viewed against the backdrop> of the> > > > rasi, we say that two planets are conjunct when they appear to be> in the> > > > same rasi. This is apparent and not true in reality. As pointed> out> > > earlier,> > > > rasi is also imaginary; it has no physical boundaries in space.> > > >> > > > The point I am driving at is that when we say that two planets are> > > conjunct> > > > in a rasi purely on a non-physical basis (apparent), what is wrong> with> > > > defining similar conjunctions in vargas?> > > >> > > > Regarding varga (division) + uttama (best) = vargottama, M-W> > > > (Monier-Williams) dictionary gives the following meanings for> uttama:> > > >> > > > uppermost, highest, chief, most elevated, principal, best ,> excellent> > > RV.> > > > AV. AitBr. Mn. Pan5cat. & c. (often ifc. , e.g. %{dvijo7ttama} ,> best of> > > the> > > > twice-born i.e. a Bra1hman Mn.) first, greatest, the highest> (tone) the> > > most> > > > removed or last in place or order or time etc.> > > >> > > > best regards> > > > Hari> > > >> > >> >>