Parasara Quote and Santhanam: Aspects in Divisions

[Guest guest]

Dear Pradeep,

 

I wanted to get out of this argument, but am forced to stay after you dragged a

great scholar into it and used his name wrongly.

 

> Dear Narasimha ji> > I have no more logic or knowledge to convince you.Now you

are saying > you dont care for Santhanam's logic as well.> > The very shloka you

have quoted was translated by Santhanam(as per > your mail).So do you think

Santhanam didn't understand the meaning of

 

I don't have to "think". Santhanam himself confessed so. Read on...

> this shloka while mentioning his views in 'Deva Keralam'.Now i have > to

study this shloka well as i am not good in sanskrit.

 

I am pretty sure you haven't seen what Santhanam wrote in his BPHS translation

regarding the verse I quoted. If you did, you wouldn't write the above.

Unfortunately, you are more keen on winning a debate than on checking out the

references provided carefully.

 

Santhanam translated the verse exactly as I did (after all, there is no

ambiguity or scope for translating in any other way!), but confessed that he

could not really understand how it could be! He accepted his limitations and

left it at that. So whatever he wrote in other books on this issue can be

safely ignored.

 

This is what he wrote regarding 39-13 of BPHS. [Note: I am copying it verbatim,

including the punctuation. Please note that this material is copyrighted by

Ranjan Publications and I am quoting it to just show a point. Those who want

this wonderful book may kindly contact Ranjan Publications (phone: 3278835 in

New Delhi, India).]

 

"If the six divisions (shadvargas) of the ascendant is occupied or aspected by

one and the same planet, a Raja yoga is doubtlessly formed. According to the

aspect is full, half or one fourth, results will be in order full, medium and

negligible.

 

"Notes: Rasi, Hora, Drekkana, Trimsamsa, Navamsa and Dvadasamsa constitute

Shadvarga or six divisions. If a planet occupies the ascendant in all these 6

charts it causes a powerful Raja yoga. Aspects are referred to in the

divisional charts here. I am unable to fully conceive the logic in aspects in

divisional charts for the sage himself referred to longitudinal aspectual

evaluation in an earlier chapter. Without commenting further on this

controversial aspect I leave it at that, accepting my limitation to explain

this fully."

 

Now, two important points:

 

(1) As far as translation itself is concerned, there is no controversy or

ambiguity. Both Santhanam and I translate it the same way. So let us be clear

that Parasara is unambiguous that aspects are valid in divisional charts (more

specifically, aspects for which magnitude is defined atleast in terms of

"full", "half" and "quarter").

 

(2) But, how it can be true is something that the great Santhanam could not

"conceive". He could not understand it and accepted that it was his limitation.

So he left it at that, instead of challenging or misinterpreting the sage (which

is a great quality in a translator and I admire Santhanam for that).

 

Thus, if Santhanam makes any comments on aspects in divisional charts in any

other book, they are worth nothing. There is a clear dictum of Parasara which

he confessed not to understand. What good are his views on this topic then?

 

* * *

 

The great Santhanam was unnecessarily confused, after accurately translating the

verse. Let us see how the verse can make sense without contradicting the sage's

previous chapters.

 

Possibility 0: The sage was talking about sign aspects mentioned in chapter 8

(raasi drishti kathanaadhyaya).

 

Problem is that these aspects have no magnitudes (like full, half and quarter)

associated with them. Thus, this possibility is ruled out. Parasara clearly

mentioned these magnitudes in 39-13.

 

Now the only possibility is that graha drishti mentioned in chapter 26 (graha

sphuta drishti kathanaadhyaaya) was meant. Here, Parasara mentioned graha

drishti at two levels. He established a "saamaanya" aspect that is just based

on houses. Then he mentioned sphuta drishti based sphutas. Thus there are two

further possibilities based on whether planets have longitudes in divisions or

not.

 

Possibility 1: Planets in divisional charts do not have longitudes. As per this,

suppose a planet is at 14 deg in Sg. In dasamsa, it is in Aries. There is no

associated longitude in dasamsa. The planet has only one physical longitude

(254 deg). In all divisional charts, there is only a sign associated with it.

The planet is in Sg in kshetra chakra, Le in navamsa chakra, Ar in dasamsa

chakra and so on. In all these charts, it has no longitude. These are just

charts containing information on the signs occupied by planets and lagna. Each

sign is one house. The chart simply consists of 12 houses and planets with

planets occupying a house.

 

With this definition, we can use saamaanya graha drishti defined by Parasara in

the first 5 verses of chapter 26. He said that all planets have a full aspect

on 7th, a three-quarter aspect on 4th and 8th, a half aspect on 5th and 9th and

a quarter aspect on 3rd and 10th. Further he gave full aspects for Mars, Jupiter

and Saturn on these house pairs. He said this is the normal graha drishti

mentioned by scholars. We can use this. After defining this, Parasara went on

to give longitudinal graha drishti based on longitudes, but that does not apply

in divisions. It applies only to the physical longitudes, based on which graha

balas are computed.

 

If we hold on to the view that charts do not have longitudes of planets

associated with them and only have signs of planets associated with them, we

can still apply the normal graha drishti based on the above! That still gives

graha drishti upto full, three-quarter, half and quarter levels. Parasara's

later verse (39-13) makes perfect sense.

 

Possibility 2: Planets in divisional charts do have longitudes. Suppose a planet

is at 14 deg in Sg physically. Then it is at 14 deg in Sg in kshetra (rasi)

chakra. It is at 20 deg in Aries in dasamsa chart (14 is in 12:00-15:00 range

and at the two-thirds point).

 

With this view, you can not only apply the normal (saamaanya) graha drishti

established in the first 5 verses of chapter 26, but you can apply the detailed

graha drishti defined in the next verses. You can get planetary aspect as a real

number from 0.0 to 60.0.

 

Both the possibilities are tenable and you can pick the one you like (even

though there is a slight problem with possibility 1 regarding exaltation in

vargas. Exaltation in individual divisions was very clearly used by Parasara

when defining vaiseshikamsas, but he defined exaltation not in full signs but

in fractional signs. This results in a problem if a planet in Aries in dasamsa,

for example, does not have a specific point in Aries associated with it. Thus

possibility 2 is more like it).

 

But the important point is that there is no other way to explain verse 39-13.

 

Bottomline is: Parasara unambiguously approved planetary aspects in divisional charts!

 

* * *

 

Regarding your quote from Sri DV Subba Rao, it is simply his view and it does

not match the views of Parasara and my parampara (tradition).

 

BTW, I heard about Sri Subba Rao and I am interested in getting hold of his

book(s) in Telugu, Hindi or English languages. Is there a place where I can

order his book mentioned by you and/or any other books by him? Thanks a lot for

any information/help in this regard!

 

May Jupiter's light shine on us,

Narasimha

[Guest guest]

Dear Narasimha Ji

 

I am worried only about yourself doubting the intentions of my

debate.You said i am just keen on winning the debate - if that is the

case then you need not reply.I am not denying the fact that i argue

and would love to debate - but definitely not to impose on someone a

false logic especially on a divine topic like Jyotisha.If and only if

i have doubt and if and only if ,i feel a logic, i will indulge.In

jyotisha i have no material aspirations.If i can contribute some

questions which can inturn storm your brain, knowledge and thereby to

bring more spiritual knowledge - then that is my intention.I am

learning through these discussions.Hence kindly approach my

discussions with a positive attitude.But the nature has to be that of

a debate - otherwise one cannot express his views clearly in

situations similar to the ongoing topic.

-

>>The great Santhanam was unnecessarily confused, after accurately

ranslating the verse. Let us see how the verse can make sense without

contradicting the sage's >>previous chapters.

>Possibility 1: Planets in divisional charts do not have longitudes.

>As per this, suppose a planet is at 14 deg in Sg. In dasamsa, it is

>in Aries.>> Each sign is one house. The chart simply consists of 12

houses and planets >>with planets occupying a house.

>>If we hold on to the view that charts do not have longitudes of

>planets associated with them and only have signs of planets

>associated with them, we can still apply the >>normal graha drishti

>based on the above! That still gives graha drishti upto full, three-

>quarter, half and quarter levels. Parasara's later verse (39-13)

>makes perfect sense.

--------

 

I will tell you why Shri Santhanam was unable to understand while you

were able to `understand'.

 

Let us consider your possibility (1).This case has a discrepancy

which you had overlooked.

If there is no longitude associated then the sign can never be one

full sign and hence not one house? Why? The basic definition of a

divisional chart has to be retained. Thus for example to get a full

sign from 1/9th (in the case of navamsha) we have to multiply the

longitude of a planet in rashi by 9 and expunge 360(if necessary) and

the result, definitely have to have a degree. Else it has no meaning.

Or even if you use any mapping logic – there should be a degree

associated, whenever you transform a portion into full.

 

Now if it doesn't have a degree, that means it is 3.3 of a sign(just

a 1/9th division as parasharas definition in case of navamsha ), and

hence a planet within that cannot aspect as per general rules.

Whether it is a full or quarter or half aspect the aspects are always

on houses. And these houses are always at longitudinal increments of

30 degrees.

Thus your case is invalid – When you say full, half or quarter it

signifies just the quality or strength not the rule for aspect. But

for aspecting the rule should be longitudinal.Why? Parashara himself

tells that all planets aspect 3, 4th, 7th, 8th and 10th houses.When

it is a 3rd house aspect the strength is so and so, when 7th it is so

and so.Thus the quality is not the decisive factor for aspect.Whether

it is full or quarter it will aspect the said house. Now it should be

clear why Shri.Santhanam was unable to understand.

 

Now if you consider it as a full house then it is an extrapolated

value and I have expressed my concerns already. Santhanam too didn't

consider extrapolation – this is clear from his statement in deva

keralam –aspects emanate by longitudinal distances.

 

Now whether to consider aspects in divisionals or not - is the main

point of the discussion. It is subjective based on logic.

R.Santhanam ,Dr.Subbarao ,Shri Chandrashekhar ji all of the learned

level and a student like me of the lower level cannot understand this

for the above stated reasons.May be you are able to conceive.

 

Santhanam was a gentleman translator as you had mentioned, hence he

expressed his views with boldness outside(Devakeralam).

 

For me the logic is like this - use something if you are certain

about it. Else don't use it. If you don't use it there is no harm you

can still evaluate divisional charts without aspects. But if you use

it without knowing the logic then you are predicting using a rule

which has no logic.

 

Moreover the most important point is - we have so many divisional

charts and different groups (shad, dasha, shodasha).In spite of these

we were able to find only one shloka related to Rajayoga from

parashara mentioning aspect!Why other aspects don't make Rajayoga? If

Parashara wanted us to understand aspects in divisionals similar to

Rashi without his explicit mentioning, why he should mention only

this shadvarga aspect explicitly?

 

Thus I am not forcing any one with my logic at all. I am logically

exposing the flaws in logics brought in to support aspects. Now it is

up to each individual to opt.

 

* * *

Dear Narasimha ji - I have no info regarding Dr.Subbu Raos books.I

just came to know about his views,haven't read any books.I think as

he is a Telegu scholar your father may be able to help.

 

Thanks

Pradeep

 

vedic astrology, "Narasimha P.V.R. Rao"

<pvr@c...> wrote:

> Dear Pradeep,

>

> I wanted to get out of this argument, but am forced to stay after

you dragged a great scholar into it and used his name wrongly.

>

> > Dear Narasimha ji

> >

> > I have no more logic or knowledge to convince you.Now you are

saying

> > you dont care for Santhanam's logic as well.

> >

> > The very shloka you have quoted was translated by Santhanam(as

per

> > your mail).So do you think Santhanam didn't understand the

meaning of

>

> I don't have to "think". Santhanam himself confessed so. Read on...

>

> > this shloka while mentioning his views in 'Deva Keralam'.Now i

have

> > to study this shloka well as i am not good in sanskrit.

>

> I am pretty sure you haven't seen what Santhanam wrote in his BPHS

translation regarding the verse I quoted. If you did, you wouldn't

write the above. Unfortunately, you are more keen on winning a debate

than on checking out the references provided carefully.

>

> Santhanam translated the verse exactly as I did (after all, there

is no ambiguity or scope for translating in any other way!), but

confessed that he could not really understand how it could be! He

accepted his limitations and left it at that. So whatever he wrote in

other books on this issue can be safely ignored.

>

> This is what he wrote regarding 39-13 of BPHS. [Note: I am copying

it verbatim, including the punctuation. Please note that this

material is copyrighted by Ranjan Publications and I am quoting it to

just show a point. Those who want this wonderful book may kindly

contact Ranjan Publications (phone: 3278835 in New Delhi, India).]

>

> "If the six divisions (shadvargas) of the ascendant is occupied or

aspected by one and the same planet, a Raja yoga is doubtlessly

formed. According to the aspect is full, half or one fourth, results

will be in order full, medium and negligible.

>

> "Notes: Rasi, Hora, Drekkana, Trimsamsa, Navamsa and Dvadasamsa

constitute Shadvarga or six divisions. If a planet occupies the

ascendant in all these 6 charts it causes a powerful Raja yoga.

Aspects are referred to in the divisional charts here. I am unable to

fully conceive the logic in aspects in divisional charts for the sage

himself referred to longitudinal aspectual evaluation in an earlier

chapter. Without commenting further on this controversial aspect I

leave it at that, accepting my limitation to explain this fully."

>

> Now, two important points:

>

> (1) As far as translation itself is concerned, there is no

controversy or ambiguity. Both Santhanam and I translate it the same

way. So let us be clear that Parasara is unambiguous that aspects are

valid in divisional charts (more specifically, aspects for which

magnitude is defined atleast in terms of "full", "half"

and "quarter").

>

> (2) But, how it can be true is something that the great Santhanam

could not "conceive". He could not understand it and accepted that it

was his limitation. So he left it at that, instead of challenging or

misinterpreting the sage (which is a great quality in a translator

and I admire Santhanam for that).

>

> Thus, if Santhanam makes any comments on aspects in divisional

charts in any other book, they are worth nothing. There is a clear

dictum of Parasara which he confessed not to understand. What good

are his views on this topic then?

>

> * * *

>

> The great Santhanam was unnecessarily confused, after accurately

translating the verse. Let us see how the verse can make sense

without contradicting the sage's previous chapters.

>

> Possibility 0: The sage was talking about sign aspects mentioned in

chapter 8 (raasi drishti kathanaadhyaya).

>

> Problem is that these aspects have no magnitudes (like full, half

and quarter) associated with them. Thus, this possibility is ruled

out. Parasara clearly mentioned these magnitudes in 39-13.

>

> Now the only possibility is that graha drishti mentioned in chapter

26 (graha sphuta drishti kathanaadhyaaya) was meant. Here, Parasara

mentioned graha drishti at two levels. He established a "saamaanya"

aspect that is just based on houses. Then he mentioned sphuta drishti

based sphutas. Thus there are two further possibilities based on

whether planets have longitudes in divisions or not.

>

> Possibility 1: Planets in divisional charts do not have longitudes.

As per this, suppose a planet is at 14 deg in Sg. In dasamsa, it is

in Aries. There is no associated longitude in dasamsa. The planet has

only one physical longitude (254 deg). In all divisional charts,

there is only a sign associated with it. The planet is in Sg in

kshetra chakra, Le in navamsa chakra, Ar in dasamsa chakra and so on.

In all these charts, it has no longitude. These are just charts

containing information on the signs occupied by planets and lagna.

Each sign is one house. The chart simply consists of 12 houses and

planets with planets occupying a house.

>

> With this definition, we can use saamaanya graha drishti defined by

Parasara in the first 5 verses of chapter 26. He said that all

planets have a full aspect on 7th, a three-quarter aspect on 4th and

8th, a half aspect on 5th and 9th and a quarter aspect on 3rd and

10th. Further he gave full aspects for Mars, Jupiter and Saturn on

these house pairs. He said this is the normal graha drishti mentioned

by scholars. We can use this. After defining this, Parasara went on

to give longitudinal graha drishti based on longitudes, but that does

not apply in divisions. It applies only to the physical longitudes,

based on which graha balas are computed.

>

> If we hold on to the view that charts do not have longitudes of

planets associated with them and only have signs of planets

associated with them, we can still apply the normal graha drishti

based on the above! That still gives graha drishti upto full, three-

quarter, half and quarter levels. Parasara's later verse (39-13)

makes perfect sense.

>

> Possibility 2: Planets in divisional charts do have longitudes.

Suppose a planet is at 14 deg in Sg physically. Then it is at 14 deg

in Sg in kshetra (rasi) chakra. It is at 20 deg in Aries in dasamsa

chart (14 is in 12:00-15:00 range and at the two-thirds point).

>

> With this view, you can not only apply the normal (saamaanya) graha

drishti established in the first 5 verses of chapter 26, but you can

apply the detailed graha drishti defined in the next verses. You can

get planetary aspect as a real number from 0.0 to 60.0.

>

> Both the possibilities are tenable and you can pick the one you

like (even though there is a slight problem with possibility 1

regarding exaltation in vargas. Exaltation in individual divisions

was very clearly used by Parasara when defining vaiseshikamsas, but

he defined exaltation not in full signs but in fractional signs. This

results in a problem if a planet in Aries in dasamsa, for example,

does not have a specific point in Aries associated with it. Thus

possibility 2 is more like it).

>

> But the important point is that there is no other way to explain

verse 39-13.

>

> Bottomline is: Parasara unambiguously approved planetary aspects in

divisional charts!

>

> * * *

>

> Regarding your quote from Sri DV Subba Rao, it is simply his view

and it does not match the views of Parasara and my parampara

(tradition).

>

> BTW, I heard about Sri Subba Rao and I am interested in getting

hold of his book(s) in Telugu, Hindi or English languages. Is there a

place where I can order his book mentioned by you and/or any other

books by him? Thanks a lot for any information/help in this regard!

>

> May Jupiter's light shine on us,

> Narasimha

[Guest guest]

Namaste Pradeep,

 

> Let us consider your possibility (1).This case has a discrepancy

> which you had overlooked.

 

Let us just *suppose* that possibility 1 is ruled out.

 

This leaves us with possibility 2.

 

> Now if you consider it as a full house then it is an extrapolated

> value and I have expressed my concerns already. Santhanam too

didn't

> consider extrapolation – this is clear from his statement in deva

> keralam –aspects emanate by longitudinal distances.

 

If you do not agree with possibility 1, then you have no other

choice. You have to accept possibility 2. If you think that

there cannot be aspects in divisions without extrapolating

longitudes, then it means you HAVE to "extrapolate". It means

your concerns are bogus and Santhanam's views are wrong.

 

Bottomline: Parasara clearly mentioned aspects in divisions and

Santhanam too translated it the same way. If he or you choose

to ignore the verse because you have some concerns, it is

simply your stubbornness. Parasara is clear.

 

> Now whether to consider aspects in divisionals or not - is the main

> point of the discussion. It is subjective based on logic.

 

No. no. no.

 

There is nothing subjective. Parasara is categorical. Santhanam

also translated it the same way. There ARE aspects in divisions

and they even have magnitudes associated (full, half, quarter).

THAT MUCH is crystal clear from 39-13 of BPHS. Even Santhanam

agrees with my translation.

 

The issue is how to apply the aspects - whether to apply

saamaanya graha drishti based just on houses or sphuta graha

drishti based on longitudes. THAT is the issue. THAT is

subjective. You make your own conclusion.

 

But, if you say that even the issue of whether planets have

aspects in divisions or not is subjective, you are wrong.

 

> R.Santhanam ,Dr.Subbarao ,Shri Chandrashekhar ji all of the learned

> level and a student like me of the lower level cannot understand

this

> for the above stated reasons.May be you are able to conceive.

 

Well, throwing big names proves nothing. What Parasara said

unambiguously cannot be pushed aside because a bunch of

scholars are uncomfortable with its ramifications!!

 

May Jupiter's light shine on us,

Narasimha

[Guest guest]

Dear Narasimha ji

 

I will reply to your mail in detail later.Could you kindly help me in

translating the shloka word by word.

 

I am not suspecting you -if i was, i should had asked someon else for

this help:-)

 

lagna shadvargake chaivameka kheta yutekshite |

raaja yogo bhavatyeva nirvisankam dwijottama

 

My knowledge is very poor so correct me- half is guess work!

Lagna Shadvargake (Lagna in shadvargas)

cha aivam eka kheta (and one and the same field or sign(khet is field)

yutikshite (joining or aspecting)

 

second line is clear.

I think planet has to be understood by default?

This is just out of curiousity.

 

Thanks in advance.

Pradeep

[Guest guest]

Namaste Predeep,

 

I am not asking you to believe in my translation. You can obtain

BPHS translation by Santhanam and read his translation. I actually

quoted it in another mail.

 

The fact of the matter is that Santhanam understood what the verse

unamiguously meant. But he could not reconcile its meaning with

some beliefs - possibly unfounded beliefs - he had. He registered

the same in writing and moved on.

 

Same holds for others.

 

Kheta does not mean field. It means planet. I think you are confused

by the Hindi word khet. There it is a dental "t". Kshetra in Sanskrit

and khet in Hindi means a field.

 

Kheta means planet (here it is alveolar "t"). So "planet" is not to

be "understood", but given explicitly. "Eka kheta" means "one planet".

"Eka kheta yutekshite" means "if conjoined or aspected by one planet".

 

May Jupiter's light shine on us,

Narasimha

 

> Dear Narasimha ji

>

> I will reply to your mail in detail later.Could you kindly help me

in

> translating the shloka word by word.

>

> I am not suspecting you -if i was, i should had asked someon else

for

> this help:-)

>

> lagna shadvargake chaivameka kheta yutekshite |

> raaja yogo bhavatyeva nirvisankam dwijottama

>

> My knowledge is very poor so correct me- half is guess work!

> Lagna Shadvargake (Lagna in shadvargas)

> cha aivam eka kheta (and one and the same field or sign(khet is

field)

> yutikshite (joining or aspecting)

>

> second line is clear.

> I think planet has to be understood by default?

> This is just out of curiousity.

>

> Thanks in advance.

> Pradeep

[Guest guest]

Dear Narasimha ji

 

Thanks for the explanation.

I have respect for your knowledge.

 

Thus as you have mentioned the shloka is clear in meaning.

 

But why was parashara mentinoning this(aspect factor) in just one

shloka.Also he is mentioning about this only regarding shadvargas not

to the other varga groups.

Also see apart from lagna in divisional charts no rajayoga has been

mentioned by Parashara connected to other houses in Divisional

charts.This also proves Dr.Subba Raos views.

 

Thus it means aspects are possible - but how?only by the general rule

ie in longitudinal increments.Thus if we want to see aspects in

divisional charts we can (without extrapolation) but then, we have to

go by 30 degree considerations.Thus we have to count the number of

divisions- navamsha or dashamsha(to group it into 30 degress ,this is

similar to counting the 32 nd navamsha,64th navamsha etc for various

indications) - but what is the result then- same as aspects in Rashi!

Thus the 'aspects' which he is mentioning is the same aspect which we

have already determined in rashi.So when he says same planet

aspecting or conjoining - it means aspecting the lagna in rashi

(because even if you count aspects in division it will give the same

result -assuming planets have only a single position in space at a

time and extrapolation is inferior logic compared with actual

position),and when he mentions conjoining this has to be seen for

all.In the case of aspect as well one could do for all - but it is

just duplicate work.

 

Thus by this shloka parashara might have thought -i have clearly

mentioned the logic of aspects in previous chapters and hence the

students should be able to distinguish.

 

If this aspect was mentioned by parashara again and again, then i

should never try to contradict.But since we are able to find only a

single shloka in whole BPHS we could also consider the possibility

mentioned by me.

 

Then regarding big names -names were not quoted just for the sake of

quoting - they were unable to relate the logic of parashara mentioned

in previous chapters with the said shloka.Logically i feel you too

will agree to their views(as we had ruled out possibility one).You

have conviction because of this single shloka.(second possibility has

relevance only if reinforced by this shloka)

 

Any ways, with logic it is difficult to relate(I think in line with

the three scholars - for clear reasons).But based on the translation

of this shloka one may.Thus from my part i have got nothing new,

unless i read more. Thus i thank you and everyone very much for your

valuable time and guidance.May be when Chandrashekhar ji is back he

could explain further.Thus now things are clear and each member can

choose whichever they feel as apt.

 

Thanks & Respect

Pradeep

vedic astrology, "pvr108" <pvr@c...> wrote:

> Namaste Predeep,

>

> I am not asking you to believe in my translation. You can obtain

> BPHS translation by Santhanam and read his translation. I actually

> quoted it in another mail.

>

> The fact of the matter is that Santhanam understood what the verse

> unamiguously meant. But he could not reconcile its meaning with

> some beliefs - possibly unfounded beliefs - he had. He registered

> the same in writing and moved on.

>

> Same holds for others.

>

> Kheta does not mean field. It means planet. I think you are confused

> by the Hindi word khet. There it is a dental "t". Kshetra in

Sanskrit

> and khet in Hindi means a field.

>

> Kheta means planet (here it is alveolar "t"). So "planet" is not to

> be "understood", but given explicitly. "Eka kheta" means "one

planet".

> "Eka kheta yutekshite" means "if conjoined or aspected by one

planet".

>

> May Jupiter's light shine on us,

> Narasimha

>

> > Dear Narasimha ji

> >

> > I will reply to your mail in detail later.Could you kindly help

me

> in

> > translating the shloka word by word.

> >

> > I am not suspecting you -if i was, i should had asked someon else

> for

> > this help:-)

> >

> > lagna shadvargake chaivameka kheta yutekshite |

> > raaja yogo bhavatyeva nirvisankam dwijottama

> >

> > My knowledge is very poor so correct me- half is guess work!

> > Lagna Shadvargake (Lagna in shadvargas)

> > cha aivam eka kheta (and one and the same field or sign(khet is

> field)

> > yutikshite (joining or aspecting)

> >

> > second line is clear.

> > I think planet has to be understood by default?

> > This is just out of curiousity.

> >

> > Thanks in advance.

> > Pradeep

[Guest guest]

Namaste Pradeep,

 

> But why was parashara mentinoning this(aspect factor) in just one

> shloka.Also he is mentioning about this only regarding shadvargas

not

> to the other varga groups.

 

He clearly expected us to understand when he taught sign aspects,

planetary aspects, argalas, arudha padas etc that they are applicable

in all the sixteen charts he had taught before mentioning those

concepts. That is why he casually referred to aspects in divisions

when teaching raja yogas.

 

In the verse, he was not defining aspects in divisions. If he was,

then

you can ask why only six divisions. Instead, he was casually using

something he had already defined. When he defined aspects, he

obviously

meant them in all divisions and thought we too would understand it.

That must be why he was casually referring to aspects in shadvargas

without defining them. The previous definition - which you thought

covered only the rasi chart - covered divisions to, in his mind.

 

> Also see apart from lagna in divisional charts no rajayoga has been

> mentioned by Parashara connected to other houses in Divisional

> charts.This also proves Dr.Subba Raos views.

 

On the contrary, his very use of graha drishti in divisional charts

without defining it shows that everything he taught earlier - from

aspects and argalas to arudhas - is applicable to divisional charts

as well as rasi chart.

 

> Thus it means aspects are possible - but how?only by the general

rule

 

I am glad we basically have an agreement. :-)

 

> ie in longitudinal increments.Thus if we want to see aspects in

> divisional charts we can (without extrapolation) but then, we have

to

> go by 30 degree considerations.Thus we have to count the number of

> divisions- navamsha or dashamsha(to group it into 30 degress ,this

is

> similar to counting the 32 nd navamsha,64th navamsha etc for

various

 

What? If aspects in divisional charts are reckoned differently from

those in rasi chart, Parasara would've defined them before using them.

 

> indications) - but what is the result then- same as aspects in

Rashi!

> Thus the 'aspects' which he is mentioning is the same aspect which

we

> have already determined in rashi.So when he says same planet

 

> aspecting or conjoining - it means aspecting the lagna in rashi

> (because even if you count aspects in division it will give the

same

> result -assuming planets have only a single position in space at a

> time and extrapolation is inferior logic compared with actual

> position),and when he mentions conjoining this has to be seen for

> all.In the case of aspect as well one could do for all - but it is

> just duplicate work.

 

Duplicate work, hmmm. Right now Mars is at 20 deg 3 min in Pi. A

little later, lagna here will be at 20 deg 3 min in Ge. According to

your interpretation, one born then will have a great raja yoga. Your

interpretation that full aspect in rasi translates to aspect in all

vargas makes this raja yoga so common.

 

If one uses the same definition of graha drishti given by Parasara

in rasi and divisions and evaluates aspects at the time lagna is

exactly 90 deg after Mars, there is no raja yoga. The aspect is full

in rasi chart, but missing in some divisions.

 

> If this aspect was mentioned by parashara again and again, then i

> should never try to contradict.But since we are able to find only a

> single shloka in whole BPHS we could also consider the possibility

> mentioned by me.

 

Parasara is not Narasimha Rao or Vijayadas Pradeep to keep repeating

the same thing over and over again. He mentions each thing once. If

I can't get it, my bad luck...

 

You have to realize that Parasara is from a different Yuga. He is

peerless in knowledge and ability. He does not waste words. You

cannot expect any redundancy or repetition in his teachings.

 

* * *

 

I am impressed by the persistence, stamina and creativity you

showed in this argument. Will you mind giving your birthdata?

I'll not make any public comments on it unless you want to.

 

May Jupiter's light shine on us,

Narasimha

[Guest guest]

Dear Narasimha ji

 

I am not going to write more.I appreciate your humour sense as well.

 

But i think for raja yogas to be so common apart from the aspect i

have mentioned ,the palnet should be in lagna in all six vargas -

which is not that common i beleive.

 

Thanks a lot for sharing your valuable knowledge and generosity to

discuss.

 

My birth data is

 

13 th feb 1972, 3.30 am

8deg 29 n ,76 deg 59 e (trivandrum)

 

i have no problem regarding any public analysis.

 

Thanks

Pradeep

 

vedic astrology, "pvr108" <pvr@c...> wrote:

> Namaste Pradeep,

>

> > But why was parashara mentinoning this(aspect factor) in just

one

> > shloka.Also he is mentioning about this only regarding

shadvargas

> not

> > to the other varga groups.

>

> He clearly expected us to understand when he taught sign aspects,

> planetary aspects, argalas, arudha padas etc that they are

applicable

> in all the sixteen charts he had taught before mentioning those

> concepts. That is why he casually referred to aspects in divisions

> when teaching raja yogas.

>

> In the verse, he was not defining aspects in divisions. If he was,

> then

> you can ask why only six divisions. Instead, he was casually using

> something he had already defined. When he defined aspects, he

> obviously

> meant them in all divisions and thought we too would understand it.

> That must be why he was casually referring to aspects in shadvargas

> without defining them. The previous definition - which you thought

> covered only the rasi chart - covered divisions to, in his mind.

>

> > Also see apart from lagna in divisional charts no rajayoga has

been

> > mentioned by Parashara connected to other houses in Divisional

> > charts.This also proves Dr.Subba Raos views.

>

> On the contrary, his very use of graha drishti in divisional charts

> without defining it shows that everything he taught earlier - from

> aspects and argalas to arudhas - is applicable to divisional charts

> as well as rasi chart.

>

> > Thus it means aspects are possible - but how?only by the general

> rule

>

> I am glad we basically have an agreement. :-)

>

> > ie in longitudinal increments.Thus if we want to see aspects in

> > divisional charts we can (without extrapolation) but then, we

have

> to

> > go by 30 degree considerations.Thus we have to count the number

of

> > divisions- navamsha or dashamsha(to group it into 30

degress ,this

> is

> > similar to counting the 32 nd navamsha,64th navamsha etc for

> various

>

> What? If aspects in divisional charts are reckoned differently from

> those in rasi chart, Parasara would've defined them before using

them.

>

> > indications) - but what is the result then- same as aspects in

> Rashi!

> > Thus the 'aspects' which he is mentioning is the same aspect

which

> we

> > have already determined in rashi.So when he says same planet

>

> > aspecting or conjoining - it means aspecting the lagna in rashi

> > (because even if you count aspects in division it will give the

> same

> > result -assuming planets have only a single position in space at

a

> > time and extrapolation is inferior logic compared with actual

> > position),and when he mentions conjoining this has to be seen

for

> > all.In the case of aspect as well one could do for all - but it

is

> > just duplicate work.

>

> Duplicate work, hmmm. Right now Mars is at 20 deg 3 min in Pi. A

> little later, lagna here will be at 20 deg 3 min in Ge. According

to

> your interpretation, one born then will have a great raja yoga.

Your

> interpretation that full aspect in rasi translates to aspect in all

> vargas makes this raja yoga so common.

>

> If one uses the same definition of graha drishti given by Parasara

> in rasi and divisions and evaluates aspects at the time lagna is

> exactly 90 deg after Mars, there is no raja yoga. The aspect is

full

> in rasi chart, but missing in some divisions.

>

> > If this aspect was mentioned by parashara again and again, then

i

> > should never try to contradict.But since we are able to find

only a

> > single shloka in whole BPHS we could also consider the

possibility

> > mentioned by me.

>

> Parasara is not Narasimha Rao or Vijayadas Pradeep to keep

repeating

> the same thing over and over again. He mentions each thing once. If

> I can't get it, my bad luck...

>

> You have to realize that Parasara is from a different Yuga. He is

> peerless in knowledge and ability. He does not waste words. You

> cannot expect any redundancy or repetition in his teachings.

>

> * * *

>

> I am impressed by the persistence, stamina and creativity you

> showed in this argument. Will you mind giving your birthdata?

> I'll not make any public comments on it unless you want to.

>

> May Jupiter's light shine on us,

> Narasimha