Same or Different Aries - Importance - Anna Ji

[Guest guest]

Dear Anna Ji

 

I totally agree with you regarding the symbolic representation.But i

try to beleive the symbol in navamsha is just a symbol within a

symbol.

Because in whatever possible ways i think of a transformation,i

cannot reach a logical conclusion.And today i have read that each

pada has a lord.This was what Chandrashekhar ji was mentioning

yesterday.Though we say whole ashwini is lorded by ketu(4 padas) ,

each individual pada has a lord.

 

Just imagine how will you transform a degree in rashi into

navamsha.If we you are thinking a transformation of rashi longitude

into navmsha(full sign is possible ) i have no problem - but then

the navamsha positions what we get from the software is

incorrect.Because a one to one transformation of rashi as well as

planetary position should take place.Either this or that both cannot

go together.But what the software is doing is perfect as per the

definition of Parashara.

 

Thanks

Pradeep

vedic astrology, 108ar <bona_mente>

wrote:

> Dear Pradeep,

> I no doubt agree with your reasoning in general. However, my

understanding of this issue is that 'aries is aries' because we have

to bear in mind that we deal with the symbolic representation, so,

if aries happens to be say lagna in varga chart it represents the

whole sign /otherwise it would be another segment/sign../. I don't

see contradiction here-just a bit of abstract thinking in applying

the principle.As,at the same time, not much will manifest from varga

promisses if rashi-navamsa don't promise that in a 'seed'form, as

well.

> Hope this helps with this seemingly contadictory issue.

> Regards,

> Anna

>

> vijayadas_pradeep <vijayadas_pradeep> wrote:

> Dear Narasimha Ji

>

> I have tried to explain my understanding of divisional charts with

> numerous examples.

>

> If you can explain and convince me about the flaw in my logic,in

> terms of

> Astronomical transformation - then i am happy and no more doubts.

>

> Simple example is Hora chart.All the planets in D-2 fall in just

Leo

> and

> Cancer.So what is the use of the other 10 signs in D-2.There is no

> use

> at all.We could have written down this own a piece of paper as

> well.We

> are dividing each sign in Rashi into two(Definition of Hora by

> Parashara

> -one lorded by sun and other by moon).Check whether the planet is

in

> the

> first half or 2nd; then see whether the sign is even or odd,based

on

> that we put it in Leo or cancer accordingly.If we plan to think of

> kendra ,kona aspects and all here in Hora? ,ofcourse we can think,

> but

> not any help at all.

>

> You have written again statements like both the 'Aries' are the

same

> and no different 'Aries'.

> I think when we simply say Aries, it represents a sector of

zodiacal

> arc.But for astrology the importance of this Aries lies in

> the 'tattwa'

> behind this.Else it is just a name.Aries or any other sign

represents

> some space which is comprised of properties like vayu ,agni or

jala ,

> governed by a planet etc.

>

> Thus the whole zodiac can be considered as a complete whole which

> consists of individual tattwas.These can be grouped with varying

> intensities.

>

> For example, when we consider a beam of light - it consists of

> numerous

> individual rays.Also each ray if we split will contain tattwas

> 'VIBGYOR'.There can be numerous beams with varying intensity ,but

the

> basic tattwa is 'VIBGYOR'.

>

> Thus similarly ,When we divide a zodiacal arc which we call by

> aries, we

> could still find the basic tattwas repeating.Simple example: Aries

is

> governed by Mars but it contains three other nakshathras which is

> lorded

> by different planets,say Ketu,Venus and Sun.And with in 4 padas of

> Ashwini itself one can find again tattwas of Aries,Taurus,Gemini

and

> Cancer.Thus when we try to comprehend, it is not the name Aries

that

> matters, but the tattwa underlying.

>

> Thus the basis of navamsha is the tattwas of nakshathra padas as

> Chandrashekharji has pointed out.

>

> I am writing these mails again not to win an arguement,rather to

> check the validity of the rules we have assumed in divisional

> charts.This check cannot be done by me as my knowledge is having

its

> limits when compared to the Gurujis.

>

>

> Thanks

> Pradeep

>

>

>

> To UNSUBSCRIBE: Blank mail to vedic astrology-

 

>

> ....... May Jupiter's light shine on us .......

>

>

>

>

> Sponsor

>

>

>

> Links

>

>

> vedic astrology/

>

>

> vedic astrology

>

> Terms of

Service.

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

> Find out what made the Top Searches of 2003

[Guest guest]

Dear Pradeep,

I have a feeling that you somehow get yourself going in the circle.

Chandrashekhar says that he considers Naksatras and naksatra padas /lorded by

different planets. wrt the basic issue- both seem correct.Let me put it another

way: Navamsa falls in Aries- if you decide not to consider degrees in N. it's

Aries, lorded by Mars, if you consider degrees you can get say 'sub-lord'.../I

don't/.

Rashi Lagna falls in a certain degree, based on which you decide that it is

Aries /Naks, naks. padas and their lordship add additional information-. And

you seem to agree that in that case Aries is Aries. Same can be applied in

Navamsa. That is my understanding.

The best way to deal with this is to test it in practice- since neither of us

has done sufficient research, we need to place trust in our teachers' opinion-

to at least launch our own research in a suggested manner.

If we focus our attention and be open-minded, the relevant proofs will appear.

That's my attitude about studying/teaching. Besides our own logic, there is an

'inherent logic of the events in any body of knowledge, which may not be the

same all the time as our 'inexperienced' one- that's the reason why we need a

Guru whom we will /decide to/ trust.

We can go in the parallel circles, never reaching each other, otherwise. And

this is far from being the only issue that we'll meet in the course of our

studies.

Best of luck,

Annavijayadas_pradeep <vijayadas_pradeep > wrote:

Dear Anna JiI totally agree with you regarding the symbolic representation.But i

try to beleive the symbol in navamsha is just a symbol within a symbol.Because

in whatever possible ways i think of a transformation,i cannot reach a logical

conclusion.And today i have read that each pada has a lord.This was what

Chandrashekhar ji was mentioning yesterday.Though we say whole ashwini is

lorded by ketu(4 padas) , each individual pada has a lord.Just imagine how will

you transform a degree in rashi into navamsha.If we you are thinking a

transformation of rashi longitude into navmsha(full sign is possible ) i have

no problem - but then the navamsha positions what we get from the software is

incorrect.Because a one to one transformation of rashi as well as planetary

position should take place.Either this or that both cannot

go together.But what the software is doing is perfect as per the definition of

Parashara.ThanksPradeepvedic astrology, 108ar

<bona_mente> wrote:> Dear Pradeep,> I no doubt agree with your reasoning

in general. However, my understanding of this issue is that 'aries is aries'

because we have to bear in mind that we deal with the symbolic representation,

so, if aries happens to be say lagna in varga chart it represents the whole

sign /otherwise it would be another segment/sign../. I don't see contradiction

here-just a bit of abstract thinking in applying the principle.As,at the same

time, not much will manifest from varga promisses if rashi-navamsa don't

promise that in a 'seed'form, as well.> Hope this helps with this seemingly

contadictory issue.> Regards,> Anna> > vijayadas_pradeep

<vijayadas_pradeep> wrote:> Dear Narasimha

Ji> > I have tried to explain my understanding of divisional charts with>

numerous examples.> > If you can explain and convince me about the flaw in my

logic,in > terms of> Astronomical transformation - then i am happy and no more

doubts.> > Simple example is Hora chart.All the planets in D-2 fall in just Leo

> and> Cancer.So what is the use of the other 10 signs in D-2.There is no > use>

at all.We could have written down this own a piece of paper as > well.We> are

dividing each sign in Rashi into two(Definition of Hora by > Parashara> -one

lorded by sun and other by moon).Check whether the planet is in > the> first

half or 2nd; then see whether the sign is even or odd,based on> that we put it

in Leo or cancer accordingly.If we plan to think of> kendra ,kona aspects and

all here in Hora? ,ofcourse we can think, >

but> not any help at all.> > You have written again statements like both the

'Aries' are the same> and no different 'Aries'.> I think when we simply say

Aries, it represents a sector of zodiacal> arc.But for astrology the importance

of this Aries lies in > the 'tattwa'> behind this.Else it is just a name.Aries

or any other sign represents> some space which is comprised of properties like

vayu ,agni or jala ,> governed by a planet etc.> > Thus the whole zodiac can be

considered as a complete whole which> consists of individual tattwas.These can

be grouped with varying> intensities.> > For example, when we consider a beam

of light - it consists of > numerous> individual rays.Also each ray if we split

will contain tattwas> 'VIBGYOR'.There can be numerous beams with varying

intensity ,but the> basic tattwa is 'VIBGYOR'. >

> Thus similarly ,When we divide a zodiacal arc which we call by > aries, we>

could still find the basic tattwas repeating.Simple example: Aries is> governed

by Mars but it contains three other nakshathras which is > lorded> by different

planets,say Ketu,Venus and Sun.And with in 4 padas of> Ashwini itself one can

find again tattwas of Aries,Taurus,Gemini and> Cancer.Thus when we try to

comprehend, it is not the name Aries that> matters, but the tattwa underlying.>

> Thus the basis of navamsha is the tattwas of nakshathra padas as>

Chandrashekharji has pointed out.> > I am writing these mails again not to win

an arguement,rather to > check the validity of the rules we have assumed in

divisional > charts.This check cannot be done by me as my knowledge is having

its > limits when compared to the Gurujis.> > > Thanks>

Pradeep> > > > > > > Archives: vedic astrology> >

Group info: vedic astrology/info.html> > To

UNSUBSCRIBE: Blank mail to vedic astrology-> > .......

May Jupiter's light shine on us .......> > || Om Tat Sat || Sarvam Sri

Krishnaarpanamastu || > > > Sponsor> > >

> Links> > To visit your

group on the web, go to:> vedic astrology/> >

To

from this group, send an email to:>

vedic astrology> > Your use of

is subject to the > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > Find out what made the Top

Searches of 2003Archives:

vedic astrologyGroup info:

vedic astrology/info.htmlTo UNSUBSCRIBE: Blank

mail to vedic astrology-....... May Jupiter's light

shine on us .......To visit your group on the web, go

to:vedic astrology/ To from this

group, send an email to:vedic astrology Your use

of is subject to the

 

Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes

 

 

Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes

[Guest guest]

Dear Anna ji

 

Thanks for yourself considering me worth discussing though my

knowledge is limited.

 

 

There can be only two ways of transformation.

a)Transforming a planetary degree in rashi into a certain degree in

divisional charts or b)without tampering the planetary positions one

can go by the definition given by parashara.In the first

transformation case advocated by Narasimha ji, we are assuming, if we

make a 3.3 degree in rashi into a full sign, then where the planet

would have been residing in the subsequent divisions.

In the second case there is no assumption, the planet remains where

it is and we try to find the finer surroundings or the environment.

(this can be similar to the jeeva shareera concept of

nakshathras).Thus I try to beleive that rather than assuming, if this

3.3 degree of a sign would had been a full sign,then where would had

been the planet and then how he would had aspected - it is far far

better to stick by the original placement of the planet.

 

I beleive a planetary aspect will have more strength if it is really

aspecting than assuming how its aspect would had been.Parashara would

also love to support this.I hope you cannot imagine about any new

transformation than the two mentioned.If you can think about a new

transformation then I would be happy to learn.

 

See it is not necessary that, since we have been learning something

for quite sometime and since it has got institutionalised into our

brain, we shouldn't reject it.If there is a flaw it should be pointed

out and approached with positive attittude.Now regarding putting this

into test -there is a problem ,when we get good results we might

assume this was because of the consideration of aspects in divisional

charts - while the real reason could had been different.Thus the

advantage is if we could research and remove reduntant techniques -

this saves a lot of time, which in turn can be used for other

analysis.

 

Real aspects and real positions are of higher priority for me than

extrapolated positions.

 

Thanks

Pradeep

 

 

vedic astrology, 108ar <bona_mente> wrote:

>

>

> Dear Pradeep,

> I have a feeling that you somehow get yourself going in the circle.

Chandrashekhar says that he considers Naksatras and naksatra

padas /lorded by different planets. wrt the basic issue- both seem

correct.Let me put it another way: Navamsa falls in Aries- if you

decide not to consider degrees in N. it's Aries, lorded by Mars, if

you consider degrees you can get say 'sub-lord'.../I don't/.

> Rashi Lagna falls in a certain degree, based on which you decide

that it is Aries /Naks, naks. padas and their lordship add additional

information-. And you seem to agree that in that case Aries is

Aries. Same can be applied in Navamsa. That is my understanding.

> The best way to deal with this is to test it in practice- since

neither of us has done sufficient research, we need to place trust in

our teachers' opinion- to at least launch our own research in a

suggested manner.

> If we focus our attention and be open-minded, the relevant proofs

will appear.

> That's my attitude about studying/teaching. Besides our own logic,

there is an 'inherent logic of the events in any body of knowledge,

which may not be the same all the time as our 'inexperienced' one-

that's the reason why we need a Guru whom we will /decide to/ trust.

> We can go in the parallel circles, never reaching each other,

otherwise.

> And this is far from being the only issue that we'll meet in the

course of our studies.

> Best of luck,

> Anna

>

> vijayadas_pradeep <vijayadas_pradeep> wrote:

> Dear Anna Ji

>

> I totally agree with you regarding the symbolic representation.But

i

> try to beleive the symbol in navamsha is just a symbol within a

> symbol.

> Because in whatever possible ways i think of a transformation,i

> cannot reach a logical conclusion.And today i have read that each

> pada has a lord.This was what Chandrashekhar ji was mentioning

> yesterday.Though we say whole ashwini is lorded by ketu(4 padas) ,

> each individual pada has a lord.

>

> Just imagine how will you transform a degree in rashi into

> navamsha.If we you are thinking a transformation of rashi longitude

> into navmsha(full sign is possible ) i have no problem - but then

> the navamsha positions what we get from the software is

> incorrect.Because a one to one transformation of rashi as well as

> planetary position should take place.Either this or that both

cannot

> go together.But what the software is doing is perfect as per the

> definition of Parashara.

>

> Thanks

> Pradeep

> vedic astrology, 108ar <bona_mente>

> wrote:

> > Dear Pradeep,

> > I no doubt agree with your reasoning in general. However, my

> understanding of this issue is that 'aries is aries' because we

have

> to bear in mind that we deal with the symbolic representation, so,

> if aries happens to be say lagna in varga chart it represents the

> whole sign /otherwise it would be another segment/sign../. I don't

> see contradiction here-just a bit of abstract thinking in applying

> the principle.As,at the same time, not much will manifest from

varga

> promisses if rashi-navamsa don't promise that in a 'seed'form, as

> well.

> > Hope this helps with this seemingly contadictory issue.

> > Regards,

> > Anna

> >

> > vijayadas_pradeep <vijayadas_pradeep> wrote:

> > Dear Narasimha Ji

> >

> > I have tried to explain my understanding of divisional charts with

> > numerous examples.

> >

> > If you can explain and convince me about the flaw in my logic,in

> > terms of

> > Astronomical transformation - then i am happy and no more doubts.

> >

> > Simple example is Hora chart.All the planets in D-2 fall in just

> Leo

> > and

> > Cancer.So what is the use of the other 10 signs in D-2.There is

no

> > use

> > at all.We could have written down this own a piece of paper as

> > well.We

> > are dividing each sign in Rashi into two(Definition of Hora by

> > Parashara

> > -one lorded by sun and other by moon).Check whether the planet is

> in

> > the

> > first half or 2nd; then see whether the sign is even or odd,based

> on

> > that we put it in Leo or cancer accordingly.If we plan to think of

> > kendra ,kona aspects and all here in Hora? ,ofcourse we can

think,

> > but

> > not any help at all.

> >

> > You have written again statements like both the 'Aries' are the

> same

> > and no different 'Aries'.

> > I think when we simply say Aries, it represents a sector of

> zodiacal

> > arc.But for astrology the importance of this Aries lies in

> > the 'tattwa'

> > behind this.Else it is just a name.Aries or any other sign

> represents

> > some space which is comprised of properties like vayu ,agni or

> jala ,

> > governed by a planet etc.

> >

> > Thus the whole zodiac can be considered as a complete whole which

> > consists of individual tattwas.These can be grouped with varying

> > intensities.

> >

> > For example, when we consider a beam of light - it consists of

> > numerous

> > individual rays.Also each ray if we split will contain tattwas

> > 'VIBGYOR'.There can be numerous beams with varying intensity ,but

> the

> > basic tattwa is 'VIBGYOR'.

> >

> > Thus similarly ,When we divide a zodiacal arc which we call by

> > aries, we

> > could still find the basic tattwas repeating.Simple example:

Aries

> is

> > governed by Mars but it contains three other nakshathras which is

> > lorded

> > by different planets,say Ketu,Venus and Sun.And with in 4 padas of

> > Ashwini itself one can find again tattwas of Aries,Taurus,Gemini

> and

> > Cancer.Thus when we try to comprehend, it is not the name Aries

> that

> > matters, but the tattwa underlying.

> >

> > Thus the basis of navamsha is the tattwas of nakshathra padas as

> > Chandrashekharji has pointed out.

> >

> > I am writing these mails again not to win an arguement,rather to

> > check the validity of the rules we have assumed in divisional

> > charts.This check cannot be done by me as my knowledge is having

> its

> > limits when compared to the Gurujis.

> >

> >

> > Thanks

> > Pradeep

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > To UNSUBSCRIBE: Blank mail to vedic astrology-

>

> >

> > ....... May Jupiter's light shine on us .......

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > Sponsor

> >

> >

> >

> > Links

> >

> >

> > vedic astrology/

> >

> >

> > vedic astrology

> >

> > Terms of

> Service.

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > Find out what made the Top Searches of 2003

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

> To UNSUBSCRIBE: Blank mail to vedic astrology-

 

>

> ....... May Jupiter's light shine on us .......

>

>

>

>

>

>

> Links

>

>

> vedic astrology/

>

>

> vedic astrology

>

> Terms of

Service.

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

> Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes

>

>

>

>

>

> Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes

[Guest guest]

Dear Anna ji

 

Thanks for reply and suggestion for a Guru.In fact when i had tried

to join Varahamihira group i was informed about this by Sarajit ji.

For me Guru has two purposes.One is to give knowledge.The other one

is a more important factor.To give blessings,guidance and formal

acceptance or initiation with a mantra.

For the second part i am not ready.As i have not given up my desire

for eating meat and i am not mentally ready for it.When i want to do

this,i have to do this seriously.

For the first part we are all blessed to have so many gurus with no

ill will towards sharing knowledge.You know all the Gurujis who

extensively help within this list.Outside the list i have great

respect for Shri Deepak Singh who gave me initial guidance.I have

great respect towards my friend Laurie ji who helps extensively and

also made me know about the views of Shri Chakrapani Ullal, Shri

K.N.Rao,Shri Kelleher, Shri Ernst William and lot more.

 

Now regarding the discussion i am not forcing anyone.I am just

exposing the flaws.I will use div charts but will use aspects only if

i am convinced.

 

Thanks again

Pradeep

 

vedic astrology, 108ar <bona_mente> wrote:

> Dear Pradeep,

> I certainly consider sharing information a worthwhile effort-

that's how I learn myself, too.

> However, I tackled this issue from several angles in attempt to

give a satisfying response to you, and don't see any other way to do

the same. Vargas are about different levels of reality- non-physical.

I would go a step further and say that most of Jyotish knowledge IMO

is about this 'non-tangible' aspect of reality. /I also had a problem

with D charts, not with issue of their "reality" -that I've accepted

easily, but with numbers of varga charts- and still have: related to

rectification issue/inaccuracy of birth time, crucial for varga

charts/

> Besides, many good astrologers do not use them,

> so if you insist on your standpoint, you maybe one of them- which

is quite OK.

>

> But please do not insist 'to be convinced by arguments', you are

unwilling to hear. Set this aside and do your own research and study

if you wish. If you are serious about studying I would suggest that

you find a Guru, because it does save lots of efforts and time-

despite the fact that I know that, I've practically never had a Guru,

bad luck, I guess- so I've learnt from any possible source available,

and it does require a huge effort, believe me

> Hope you'll take my suggestions and closing 'discussion' on this

issue in a good faith.

> I wish you good luck in your study,

> Anna

>

>

> vijayadas_pradeep <vijayadas_pradeep> wrote:Dear Anna ji

>

> Thanks for yourself considering me worth discussing though my

> knowledge is limited.

>

>

> There can be only two ways of transformation.

> a)Transforming a planetary degree in rashi into a certain degree in

> divisional charts or b)without tampering the planetary positions

one

> can go by the definition given by parashara.In the first

> transformation case advocated by Narasimha ji, we are assuming, if

we

> make a 3.3 degree in rashi into a full sign, then where the planet

> would have been residing in the subsequent divisions.

> In the second case there is no assumption, the planet remains where

> it is and we try to find the finer surroundings or the environment.

> (this can be similar to the jeeva shareera concept of

> nakshathras).Thus I try to beleive that rather than assuming, if

this

> 3.3 degree of a sign would had been a full sign,then where would

had

> been the planet and then how he would had aspected - it is far far

> better to stick by the original placement of the planet.

>

> I beleive a planetary aspect will have more strength if it is

really

> aspecting than assuming how its aspect would had been.Parashara

would

> also love to support this.I hope you cannot imagine about any new

> transformation than the two mentioned.If you can think about a new

> transformation then I would be happy to learn.

>

> See it is not necessary that, since we have been learning something

> for quite sometime and since it has got institutionalised into our

> brain, we shouldn't reject it.If there is a flaw it should be

pointed

> out and approached with positive attittude.Now regarding putting

this

> into test -there is a problem ,when we get good results we might

> assume this was because of the consideration of aspects in

divisional

> charts - while the real reason could had been different.Thus the

> advantage is if we could research and remove reduntant techniques -

> this saves a lot of time, which in turn can be used for other

> analysis.

>

> Real aspects and real positions are of higher priority for me than

> extrapolated positions.

>

> Thanks

> Pradeep

>

>

> vedic astrology, 108ar <bona_mente>

wrote:

> >

> >

> > Dear Pradeep,

> > I have a feeling that you somehow get yourself going in the

circle.

> Chandrashekhar says that he considers Naksatras and naksatra

> padas /lorded by different planets. wrt the basic issue- both seem

> correct.Let me put it another way: Navamsa falls in Aries- if you

> decide not to consider degrees in N. it's Aries, lorded by Mars, if

> you consider degrees you can get say 'sub-lord'.../I don't/.

> > Rashi Lagna falls in a certain degree, based on which you decide

> that it is Aries /Naks, naks. padas and their lordship add

additional

> information-. And you seem to agree that in that case Aries is

> Aries. Same can be applied in Navamsa. That is my understanding.

> > The best way to deal with this is to test it in practice- since

> neither of us has done sufficient research, we need to place trust

in

> our teachers' opinion- to at least launch our own research in a

> suggested manner.

> > If we focus our attention and be open-minded, the relevant proofs

> will appear.

> > That's my attitude about studying/teaching. Besides our own

logic,

> there is an 'inherent logic of the events in any body of knowledge,

> which may not be the same all the time as our 'inexperienced' one-

> that's the reason why we need a Guru whom we will /decide to/ trust.

> > We can go in the parallel circles, never reaching each other,

> otherwise.

> > And this is far from being the only issue that we'll meet in the

> course of our studies.

> > Best of luck,

> > Anna

> >

> > vijayadas_pradeep <vijayadas_pradeep> wrote:

> > Dear Anna Ji

> >

> > I totally agree with you regarding the symbolic

representation.But

> i

> > try to beleive the symbol in navamsha is just a symbol within a

> > symbol.

> > Because in whatever possible ways i think of a transformation,i

> > cannot reach a logical conclusion.And today i have read that each

> > pada has a lord.This was what Chandrashekhar ji was mentioning

> > yesterday.Though we say whole ashwini is lorded by ketu(4

padas) ,

> > each individual pada has a lord.

> >

> > Just imagine how will you transform a degree in rashi into

> > navamsha.If we you are thinking a transformation of rashi

longitude

> > into navmsha(full sign is possible ) i have no problem - but then

> > the navamsha positions what we get from the software is

> > incorrect.Because a one to one transformation of rashi as well as

> > planetary position should take place.Either this or that both

> cannot

> > go together.But what the software is doing is perfect as per the

> > definition of Parashara.

> >

> > Thanks

> > Pradeep

> > vedic astrology, 108ar <bona_mente>

> > wrote:

> > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > I no doubt agree with your reasoning in general. However, my

> > understanding of this issue is that 'aries is aries' because we

> have

> > to bear in mind that we deal with the symbolic representation,

so,

> > if aries happens to be say lagna in varga chart it represents the

> > whole sign /otherwise it would be another segment/sign../. I

don't

> > see contradiction here-just a bit of abstract thinking in

applying

> > the principle.As,at the same time, not much will manifest from

> varga

> > promisses if rashi-navamsa don't promise that in a 'seed'form, as

> > well.

> > > Hope this helps with this seemingly contadictory issue.

> > > Regards,

> > > Anna

> > >

> > > vijayadas_pradeep <vijayadas_pradeep> wrote:

> > > Dear Narasimha Ji

> > >

> > > I have tried to explain my understanding of divisional charts

with

> > > numerous examples.

> > >

> > > If you can explain and convince me about the flaw in my

logic,in

> > > terms of

> > > Astronomical transformation - then i am happy and no more

doubts.

> > >

> > > Simple example is Hora chart.All the planets in D-2 fall in

just

> > Leo

> > > and

> > > Cancer.So what is the use of the other 10 signs in D-2.There is

> no

> > > use

> > > at all.We could have written down this own a piece of paper as

> > > well.We

> > > are dividing each sign in Rashi into two(Definition of Hora by

> > > Parashara

> > > -one lorded by sun and other by moon).Check whether the planet

is

> > in

> > > the

> > > first half or 2nd; then see whether the sign is even or

odd,based

> > on

> > > that we put it in Leo or cancer accordingly.If we plan to think

of

> > > kendra ,kona aspects and all here in Hora? ,ofcourse we can

> think,

> > > but

> > > not any help at all.

> > >

> > > You have written again statements like both the 'Aries' are the

> > same

> > > and no different 'Aries'.

> > > I think when we simply say Aries, it represents a sector of

> > zodiacal

> > > arc.But for astrology the importance of this Aries lies in

> > > the 'tattwa'

> > > behind this.Else it is just a name.Aries or any other sign

> > represents

> > > some space which is comprised of properties like vayu ,agni or

> > jala ,

> > > governed by a planet etc.

> > >

> > > Thus the whole zodiac can be considered as a complete whole

which

> > > consists of individual tattwas.These can be grouped with varying

> > > intensities.

> > >

> > > For example, when we consider a beam of light - it consists of

> > > numerous

> > > individual rays.Also each ray if we split will contain tattwas

> > > 'VIBGYOR'.There can be numerous beams with varying

intensity ,but

> > the

> > > basic tattwa is 'VIBGYOR'.

> > >

> > > Thus similarly ,When we divide a zodiacal arc which we call by

> > > aries, we

> > > could still find the basic tattwas repeating.Simple example:

> Aries

> > is

> > > governed by Mars but it contains three other nakshathras which

is

> > > lorded

> > > by different planets,say Ketu,Venus and Sun.And with in 4 padas

of

> > > Ashwini itself one can find again tattwas of

Aries,Taurus,Gemini

> > and

> > > Cancer.Thus when we try to comprehend, it is not the name Aries

> > that

> > > matters, but the tattwa underlying.

> > >

> > > Thus the basis of navamsha is the tattwas of nakshathra padas as

> > > Chandrashekharji has pointed out.

> > >

> > > I am writing these mails again not to win an arguement,rather

to

> > > check the validity of the rules we have assumed in divisional

> > > charts.This check cannot be done by me as my knowledge is

having

> > its

> > > limits when compared to the Gurujis.

> > >

> > >

> > > Thanks

> > > Pradeep

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > Group info: vedic-

astrology/info.html

> > >

> > > To UNSUBSCRIBE: Blank mail to vedic astrology-

> >

> > >

> > > ....... May Jupiter's light shine on us .......

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > Sponsor

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > Links

> > >

> > >

> > > vedic astrology/

> > >

> > >

> > > vedic astrology

> > >

> > > Terms of

> > Service.

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > Find out what made the Top Searches of 2003

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > To UNSUBSCRIBE: Blank mail to vedic astrology-

>

> >

> > ....... May Jupiter's light shine on us .......

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > Links

> >

> >

> > vedic astrology/

> >

> >

> > vedic astrology

> >

> > Terms of

> Service.

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

> To UNSUBSCRIBE: Blank mail to vedic astrology-

 

>

> ....... May Jupiter's light shine on us .......

>

>

>

>

>

>

> Links

>

>

> vedic astrology/

>

>

> vedic astrology

>

> Terms of

Service.

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

> Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes