RE: SAV Question (Jhora - Technical Question)

[Guest guest]

||Hare Rama Krsna||

Dear

Goelji, Namaskar

I hope

your health is treating you well these days. Its good to see you on the lists.

 

In your

first point you state that Parashara excluded Lagna-ashtakavara, but i do not

see where he has proved this omition. Please enlighten.

Best

wishes,

***

Visti Larsen

For services and

articles visit:

http://srigaruda.com

***

 

 

 

 

 

 

sohamsa [sohamsa ] On Behalf Of Gopal Goel

11 August 2006 09:11

To:

vedic astrology ; sohamsa

Re:

[vedic astrology] Re: SAV Question (Re: Jhora - Technical Question)

 

 

 

 

 

 

Dear Narasimha ji and Visti ji ,

 

 

The discussions on Astaka-Varga are quite illuminating. I may like to draw

attention on some vital aspects which may help to widen THE understanding:

 

 

1.Basically Astak-Varga is to understand the transit results in more

rational manner, of-course it has other uses also.

 

 

2.This is the basic reason that auspicious / un - auspicious influence

is judged

 

 

from eight points that of seven planets ,instead of

only either of Moon or Ascendant only. As lagna does not transit Parasara also

did not include

 

 

Lagna Astaka-Varga.In Nabhus Yogas and in Chakras where 28

Nakshatras are considered , seven visible planets play prominent

role.Sapta-astak varga

 

 

indicate basic auspicious strength of the signs in nativity.AND LAGNA VARGA HAS

NO DIRECT ROLE IN THIS SCHEME.

 

 

3. For Rasi Dasas and longevity calculations ,Lagna astak -varga is

more usefully adopted.

 

 

4. Some authorities also suggested the use of Astaka-Varga of Rahu and

Ketu.

 

 

Their use should be limited to know the effects of these

planets only.

 

 

5.Lagna Astaka -Varga has a specific role and it should not be

integrated with

 

 

basic scheme of Sapta-astaka varga.7 OR 8 CHAR-KARKA

DOES NOT SEEM

 

 

TO INFLUENCE THE BASIC SCHEME.

 

 

I support the views of Mr. Narasimha.

 

 

Regards,

 

 

G.K.GOEL

 

" Narasimha P.V.R.

Rao " <pvr (AT) charter (DOT) net> wrote:

 

 

 

 

Dear Visti,

 

> Your totalling calculation is well known and acceptable and i fully agree

> with the doubt that an average of 32 vs. 28 does not add up with Parasaras

> view that 30 is the middle limit for experiencing auspicious vs.

> inauspicious results. But, you can also not justify that 28 as an average

is

> more acceptable as this average is less auspicous. On this point i don't

see

> your justification and i would appreciate a more detailed explanation.

 

The " middle " value for experiencing good and bad results is not 30.

Parasara taught that good results are obtained for scores over 30, bad results

for scores below 25 and " medium " results for scores between 25 and

30. Thus, the " middle limit " is in between 25 and 30. The value 28

(average score in SAV, using seven ashtakavargas of planets) fits here better

than the value of 32 (average score in SAV, using eight ashtakavargas).

 

To me, this amply suggests that lagna's AV is not included in SAV. Otherwise,

Parasara's guidelines on good, medium and bad scores in SAV become illogical.

If 8 AVs were to be summed, I would've expected Parasara to teach that 30-35 is

medium, >35 is good and <30 is bad.

 

> But, Parasara has not mentioned the omition of the lagna-varga, which is a

> very obvious omition from an otherwise very explicit rishi.

 

Well, Parasara does not really mention everything " very explicitly " .

A lot of things are read between the lines. He is only *relatively* more

explicit than Jaimini.

 

He neither mentions the omission nor the inclusion of lagna's AV. Then, we have

the above logic that suggests that lagna's AV is not included.

 

> I have used the term 'sarva saptakavarga' quite playfully, and if i have

> hurt you or anyone, i do apologize. It was never meant as criticism, but

as

> a means to invite new-thinking in others.

 

New-thinking is always welcome. However, " sarva saptaka varga " label

on what everybody including Dr Raman taught is quite unjustified. If one does

not realize that you were being " quite playful " , one can actually be

misled by that harsh label (which really has no basis).

 

Sarvam SreeKrishnaarpanamastu,

Narasimha

-------------------------

Free Jyotish lessons (MP3): http://vedicastro.home.comcast.net

Free Jyotish software (Windows): http://www.VedicAstrologer.org

Sri Jagannath Centre (SJC) website: http://www.SriJagannath.org

-------------------------

 

> ||Hare Rama Krsna||

>

> Dear Narasimha, Namaskar

>

> I have used the term 'sarva saptakavarga' quite playfully, and if i have

> hurt you or anyone, i do apologize. It was never meant as criticism, but

as

> a means to invite new-thinking in others.

>

> I fully agree with your statement about the 'common' application and

> acceptance of Sarva-ashtakavarga. The problem is that some

well-reckognized

> authors such as Varahmihira, Vaidyanath Dikshita, etc. invite and use the

> addition of seven vargas for the SAV scheme. They have also given points

to

> credit this scheme, which Guruji has reproduced in his book.

>

> But, Parasara has not mentioned the omition of the lagna-varga, which is a

> very obvious omition from an otherwise very explicit rishi. So unless we

> wanto contend this statement of a rishi, we should use all vargas if we

> wanto follow Parasara.

>

> Then what about the other respectable authors who use seven vargas??? Now,

> my personal learning from Guruji is that the eight vargas relate to the

> eight chara karaka, whilst seven are related to seven chara karaka. In

other

> words: (1) eight chara karakas are used for natal chart, whilst (2) seven

> chara karakas are used for muhurta. This is acceptable as Parasara himself

> has mentioned that 'others use seven chara karakas', and hence the

> connection between AV and chara karakas. So also others will need to use

> seven vargas. I'm stating this for reference, but i won't hold anything

> against you if you do not accept it.

>

> Your totalling calculation is well known and acceptable and i fully agree

> with the doubt that an average of 32 vs. 28 does not add up with Parasaras

> view that 30 is the middle limit for experiencing auspicious vs.

> inauspicious results. But, you can also not justify that 28 as an average

is

> more acceptable as this average is less auspicous. On this point i don't

see

> your justification and i would appreciate a more detailed explanation.

>

> Best wishes,

>

> ***

>

> Visti Larsen

>

> For services and articles visit:

>

> <http://srigaruda.com> http://srigaruda.com

>

> ***

>

> _____

>

> sohamsa

[sohamsa ]

On Behalf Of

> Narasimha P.V.R. Rao

> 04 August 2006 17:18

> vedic astrology ;

sohamsa ;

>

> SAV Question (Re: Jhora - Technical Question)

>

>

>

> Dear Ramesh,

>

>

>

> > Do you plan to make any corrections in ashakavarga point calculations?

> There

> > was a discussion sometime back about totaling error.

>

>

> There is no totalling error.

>

>

>

> Are you talking about the point someone made a while ago about JHora not

> adding ashtakavargas properly to come up with SAV? If I remember right,

the

> person said something like JHora's SAV not being " sarva

ashtakavarga " but

> being " sarva saptakavarga " , as only 7 charts are totalled.

>

>

>

> That is merely that person's theory. It is not a well-accepted view. All

> authors have taught adding the seven bhinna ashtakavargas (BAVs) to come

up

> with SAV. Lagna's BAV is not included in SAV.

>

>

>

> The point that this makes it " sarva saptakavarga " is silly. We

are still

> adding " ashtakavargas " only. Whether " sarva "

(literally, all) means seven

> planets or eight points including lagna is debatable. Instead of adding

> eight " ashtakavargas " , we are adding seven

" ashtakavargas " . They are still

> ashtakavargas and not saptakavargas. Each chart considers auspicious

places

> for the seven planets w.r.t. the eight references.

>

>

>

> For research, I will add the option of including lagna's BAV also in SAV.

> However, I will caution people that this pushes the scores artificially

> high. The rules of >30 scores being excellent and 25-30 being neutral

etc

> will be offset by this. For example, SAV of my rasi chart has 5 out of 12

> rasis with scores of 30 or higher. They are considered strong houses. If I

> add lagna's BAV also, 9 out of 12 rasis have scores of 30 or higher.

>

>

>

> In fact, many people will have too many houses with scores of 30 or

higher.

> After all, the total of all rasis in SAV increases from 337 to 386, when

you

> add lagna's BAV! The average score increases from 337/12=28.1 to

> 386/12=32.2. Thus, >30 scores becomes commonplace. The directive from

> classics that 25-30 is average and >30 is good is no longer relevant.

>

>

>

> I strongly advise against this change. Adding the ashtakavargas of 7

planets

> to come up with SAV is the correct approach.

>

>

>

> If there was some other discussion on " totaling error " that I

missed, please

> forward the discussion to me. I missed it. I caught the above discussion

on

> " sarva saptakavarga " , but did not get a chance to reply

then.

>

>

>

> Sarvam SreeKrishnaarpanamastu,

>

> Narasimha

>

> -------------------------

>

> Free Jyotish lessons (MP3): http://vedicastro.home.comcast.net

>

> Free Jyotish software (Windows): http://www.VedicAstrologer.org

>

> Sri Jagannath Centre (SJC) website: http://www.SriJagannath.org

>

> -------------------------

>

>

>

> > || Satyam Bruyat Priyam Bruyat ||

> >

> > Dear Narasimha,

> > Do you plan to make any corrections in ashakavarga point

calculations?

> There

> > was a discussion sometime back about totaling error.

> > Best Wishes,

> > Ramesh

>