Ashtakavarga: question: Philoshphy/technique of jyotisha

[Guest guest]

RRji,

With all due respects to the intellectual capabilities of the

present age, I propose that Ashtakavarga was put out as a

simpler "ganit" version of interpreting Jyotish.

"Ganit" of ancient times as well as that of Jyotisha has withstood

rigorous scrutiny over a couple of milleniums and besides a few

approximations and decimal places , it has given the lead to many a

scientific developments over centuries.

It reminds me of a song from a Manoj Kumar film of yesteryears,

"Jab zero diya mere bharat ne..iske peeche sansar chala, chalta hi

raha aur aage badha......"

Now Ganit most of us can handle well in todays computer age, more so

because it provides specific quantifiable answers. Black and White

answers, very little grey areas to decipher.

Perhaps, Parasara rightly felt that we, the kalyugis will find it

difficult to see the big picture, see the inner harmony, see the

delicate balances, understand the continuum of flowing time and its

everchanging yet subtly eternal moments.

That, we will take symbolic things on face values and probabilities

as certainities. For, we argue over if Guru can be totally good; for

we fight over the chandra mangala yoga; for we discuss ketu as

mokshakaraka.....the list goes on and on.

Even if we realise that jyotisha, a chart can never be understood

with single or multifactor certainities.

To understand it in the big picture we need to assimilate the nuances

and echoes, we need to see the micro and the macro together, jyotish

is more than ganita being applied with a given set of rules, it

describes life so it has to be as certain and as uncertain as life is!

I am sure, you are getting the point.

But , Sir, a technical ganiteeya question needs a technincal answer

too!

regards

rishi

 

 

 

, "crystal pages"

<jyotish_vani wrote:

>

> Rishi,

>

> With all due respects to Parashara and his opinions about modern

> jyotishis -- I do not see Ashtakavarga as necessarily a simpler

> system than much of the rest of jyotish.

>

> Quite frankly, nearly nothing in the body of jyotish is something

> that cannot be understood rather easily by any well-educated modern

> mind. There are far more difficult subjects very well handled by

> Kaliyugi individuals so why would jyotish be given such a high

place

> and be called intellectually-demanding?

>

> What makes jyotish difficult is the missing information and what

used

> to be the information-hoarding mentality of some ancient silos of

> information. The same story of human greed, of course!

>

> RR

>

> , rishi shukla

> <rishi_2000in@> wrote:

> >

> > RRji,

> > I think Parasara was commenting more on the limited

> > abilities of us kalyugin jyotishis and thought that we

> > should be given clear cut solutions in mathematical

> > formats rather than the broad vision of a fluid

> > dynamic harmony between various grahas.

> > So this precise mathematical model which explains the

> > instantaneous dynamics of the symmetry or balance

> > between the grahas at any given point of time.

> > Of course, its focus is primarily on the upachaya

> > houses, suggesting that karmas being done and to be

> > done can make or mar destiny.

> > Yes , malefics do indeed determine the patterns of

> > life more categorically.

> > Maybe Mars is the reflection of kaliyuga

> > Thanks for the response.

> > regards

> >

> > rishi

> > --- crystal pages <jyotish_vani@> wrote:

> >

> > > Rishi,

> > >

> > > Parashara did say that ashtakavarga is a technique

> > > specifically aimed

> > > at being useful in kaliyuga. From what I have heard,

> > > malefics have

> > > more potential for growth in a positive direction in

> > > Kaliyuga. Unless

> > > that happens, the stage would not be set for

> > > Satayuga to step in.

> > >

> > > RR

> > >

> > > , rishi

> > > shukla

> > > <rishi_2000in@> wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Ashtakvarga: a few questions

> > > >

> > > > Ashtakvarga , as we are all aware, is a method of

> > > > calculating the relative strength/weaknesses of

> > > the

> > > > grahas, particularly of use while evaluating

> > > transits

> > > > and is of help in timing events. However, it is

> > > not

> > > > used commonly.

> > > > It says that a total of 337 benefic points are

> > > > distributed by the seven planets and lagna. Of

> > > these,

> > > > Jupiter distributes the maximum 56 points in its

> > > own

> > > > bhinna ashtakvarga chart, Mercury 54, Venus 52,

> > > Moon

> > > > and Lagna 49 points each; the Sun 48 points and

> > > Saturn

> > > > and Mars 39 points each in their own BAV thus

> > > giving a

> > > > total of 337 benefic points.

> > > > If we look at the other matrix though that is how

> > > many

> > > > benefic points a particular graha distributes to

> > > the

> > > > other grahas BAV , a different picture emerges:

> > > > The most benefic Jupiter is contributing the

> > > least a

> > > > total of 36 benefic points to all the BAVs,

> > > including

> > > > 8 to its own BAV.

> > > > Moon, another benefic distributes similarly 36

> > > points;

> > > > while the most malefic Mars contributes the

> > > maximum

> > > > 49 points.

> > > > Why ???

> > > > Regards

> > > > rishi

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Tired of spam? Mail has the best spam

> > > protection around

> > > >

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

>