Why Guru shows Dual character (Some reasons can be given)

[Guest guest]

Mahabhaga,

 

If i may ask, could you please familiarise lesser mortals like me to your

Rahu-centric theory, by which I mean, some of the ground rules.

 

warm regards,

Vishnu

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

--- nameisego <nameisego wrote:

 

>

> Dear Learned Friends ,

> Self has done some work on both Rahu, Guru and Rashis which clearly

> shows there is more to it than meets the eye.

> If interested to know, undersigned can post some articles of research

> here which may throw some light on this issue.

>

> Rgds

> Tatvam-Asi

>

>

>

>

> vedic astrology, "Sarajit Poddar"

> <sarajit@s...> wrote:

> > || Jaya Jagannath ||

> > Dear Chandrashekhar,

> >

> > Thank you for the comment from the puranas.

> > " Lord Rama had to undergo vanvaas on account of Guru in Lagna,

> Guru in third sent Bali to Patala. Guru in fourth tested Satwa of

> King Harishchandra, Guru in sixth made Draupadi face Cheerharana.

> Guru in eighth destroyed (Nasha) Ravana, Tenth house Guru killed

> Duryodhana and 12th house Guru sent Pandu to forest." It further says

> that Bhishma was deprived of Kingdom on account of Guru in 2nd, King

> Dasharath had to loose his Son Rama (Putrashoka) on account of Guru

> in 5th. Aja Raja had to suffer separation from his wife on account of

> Guru in Seventh. Vishwamitra had to consume non eatables (Abhakshya)

> on account of his Guru in 9th."

> >

> > Regards

> > Sarajit

> > -

> > Chandrashekhar

> > PNRazdan

> > Cc: Prafulla Gang ; vedic astrology

> > Wednesday, September 22, 2004 5:00 AM

> > Re: [vedic astrology] Re: 2nd house Jup in various roles-

> -to Chandraji

> >

> >

> > Dear Razdan,

> >

> > Read BPHS again, Sage Parashara states opinion of Narada in

> Ghatika Lagna shloka, refers to opinions of the learned (not Brahma)

> in shloka 15 Ch.11, shloka 15 Ch.12. First shloka of Bhava Pada

> Adhyaya again mentions that he is telling the special effects of Pada

> as told by other Sages (again not Brahma). He he also mentions

> opinion of others in first shloka of Karaka Adhyaya. The great Sage

> has in almost all Adhyayas given credit to other learneds in one or

> other of the shlokas, besides what Maitreya himself said to Sage

> Parashara in the beginning of Ashtakavarga Adhyaya. In Shloka 1 of

> that Adhyaya Maitreya clearly says that Parashara has given opinions

> of many Rishis and Acharyas. So saying that Parashara only told what

> had been revealed to him by Lord Brahma would be showing disrespect

> to the Great sage who had the magnanimity to give credit to other

> Rishis and Acharyas.

> >

> > Since you are questioning veracity and authority of the shlokas

> that I quoted, I would like to give you the Texts in which the

> shlokas appear. If you read Tatvapradeepjataka and Chamatkaar

> Chintamani you will find them. The first text has the shlokas and the

> later again mentions same shlokas. If you read Chamatkar Chintamani

> further you will find Jupiter giving harm to at least one indication

> of each of the houses/bhavas he occupies. It also mentions a shloka

> from Purana which says:

> >

> > " Lord Rama had to undergo vanvaas on account of Guru in Lagna,

> Guru in third sent Bali to Patala. Guru in fourth tested Satwa of

> King Harishchandra, Guru in sixth made Draupadi face Cheerharana.

> Guru in eighth destroyed (Nasha) Ravana, Tenth house Guru killed

> Duryodhana and 12th house Guru sent Pandu to forest." It further says

> that Bhishma was deprived of Kingdom on account of Guru in 2nd, King

> Dasharath had to loose his Son Rama (Putrashoka) on account of Guru

> in 5th. Aja Raja had to suffer separation from his wife on account of

> Guru in Seventh. Vishwamitra had to consume non eatables (Abhakshya)

> on account of his Guru in 9th."

> >

> > I would not like to respond to your other comments but would like

> to mention here that the group is formed with an intention of

> learning and discussing principles of astrology. I do not

> to your assumption of astrology being a rigid science not open to

> interpretation. Some of your comments are uncalled for.

> > Chandrashekhar.

> >

> > PNRazdan wrote:

> >

> > Dear Chandarshekhar,

> > There is nothing amusing in my reasoning. Parashara is quoting no

> > ordinary Muni but Lord Brahma himself which gave us the

> BPHS.Similarly

> > Prithuysas is quoting his father the great Vrahmihir which gave us

> the

> > Horasastra. Equating your shaloka quoting a nameless sage (not

> sages as

> > I said earlier, but only one sage-I was incorrect because the noun

> and

> > verb is singular) would be like showing candle to the Sun.

> > I dont think this discussion is going to serve any purpose. You are

> not

> > prepared to reveal the origin of the shalok you are so much

> depending

> > upon. By now it seems it is something casually said to which I

> attached

> > more than necessary importance. You seem to have attained the role

> of

> > some sort of a master in this group wanting your disciples to hunt

> for

> > themselves what you hint at. But I dont think this is an Ashram.

> This

> > is a forum of discussion where an academic discussion takes place

> > openly without reservations. Or possibly there may be other reasons

> for

> > you not to come out openly.

> > The moral of this story however is clear. Astrology is a science. It

> > has a method. Under this method several books have all along treated

> > Jup as a benefic planet and all interpretations are based on this

> > principle with modifications depending on its functionality, place,

> > lordship, strength etc etc. If you now put forth a crazy idea that

> > Jupiter is a malefic or malefic like planet ( destroys the house it

> is

> > placed in), it turns the science from a method into a madness. It

> will

> > put doubts into the minds of all astrologists while interpreting its

> > effects, particularly on young minds aspiring to learn jyotish.

> Already

> > I see a discussion started on these lines on this group which in my

> > opinion is energy wasted on a wrong notion. Everytime one sees Jup

> in a

> > house, a doubt will arise as to whether it is good or bad. Some will

> > associate it with good they had in that house and others with

> whatever

> > bad they had.

> >

> > So if you are determined to reap cheap publicity by making radical,

> > unauthenticated and unconventional "advices", you may do so as this

> is

> > a free forum. But the least I can say is that this would be the

> > greatest disservice to the field of Vedic Astrology.

> > My humble suggestion to learned members would be to accept any

> advice

> > only after their own study and research and use dependable

> commentators

> > like Raman, Rao etc.for clarifications. It would be fair to treat

> any

> > advice seriously only if it is backed up by its source so as to make

> > independent verification possible unless the author says it to be

> his

> > own research/ experience.

> >

> > Chandarshekharji, so let us decide to close this discussion as

> friends

> > (not by coincidence are we both having Jup as lagnesh).

> > So far I didnot discuss specifics with you since I was on a

> headlines

> > discussion.

> > Let me now respond to your last two queries.The reference to Jup in

> the

> > Second house discussion of BPHS has to be read in totality i.e all

> the

> > three shalokas 1,2 and 3 and not the 3rd only. Let me give a gist of

> > each here

> > First shaloka: Dhanesh in second, quadrants, trines is

> dhanvridhikarak

> > (wealth giving) in 6,8,12 opposite.

> > Second Shaloka: Benefics in 2nd house, conjunct or aspected by

> > benefics- wealth giving. Malefics in 2nd house opposite effect.

> Nowhere

> > is jupiter separated out as you claim to be.So long as it is known

> as a

> > benefic, it qualifies to be a wealth giver according to this

> shaloka.

> > Third Shaloka: If 2nd lord is Jupiter and is also posited in the

> same

> > house. And if Mars is also placed with it, then the subject becomes

> > wealthy. Period.

> > This does not mean that if Mars is not there, Jupiter alone will

> harm

> > the house. This is an implication which you are trying to make out

> > probably to make your Muni's dictum hold good. Parashara never

> means

> > it. He means to say that while a swagrahi jupiter in second is

> enough

> > to make one rich but with Mars there it adds to ones wealth. Mark

> the

> > sanskrit words "Vapi" meaning 'in addition".

> > And then you are contradicting your own self since even without

> Mars,

> > Jupiter would still be swagrahi which as per your shaloka is not

> bad.

> > So why Mars becomes necessary to support?

> > As regards your second point, I am unfortunately not getting the

> > shaloka since I have a different edition. There is no chapter on

> > Kakshya and I took it as Karkanshya Phal Adhyay which has no shalok

> > wanting Jup to have support of benefics to give good results.

> > Sorry for the long mail. Regards

> > Pran Razdan

> >

> >

> > --- Chandrashekhar <boxdel> wrote:

> >

>

=== message truncated ===

 

 

=====

||Om akhandala mandalaa kaaram

vyaaptam yena charaa charam

tatpadam darsitam yena

tasmai sri gurave namaha ||

 

 

 

 

 

New and Improved Mail - Send 10MB messages!

 

[Guest guest]

Dear Mr. Trivedi:

 

Please post your articles.

 

This "Guru" dictum is getting too confusing. Why would the great

giver harm the native unless this Guru is located in a bad house and

represents a curse/bad karma from prior lives.

 

Mukund

 

vedic astrology, "nameisego" <nameisego>

wrote:

>

> Dear Learned Friends ,

> Self has done some work on both Rahu, Guru and Rashis which clearly

> shows there is more to it than meets the eye.

> If interested to know, undersigned can post some articles of

research

> here which may throw some light on this issue.

>

> Rgds

> Tatvam-Asi

>

>

>

>

> vedic astrology, "Sarajit Poddar"

> <sarajit@s...> wrote:

> > || Jaya Jagannath ||

> > Dear Chandrashekhar,

> >

> > Thank you for the comment from the puranas.

> > " Lord Rama had to undergo vanvaas on account of Guru in Lagna,

> Guru in third sent Bali to Patala. Guru in fourth tested Satwa of

> King Harishchandra, Guru in sixth made Draupadi face Cheerharana.

> Guru in eighth destroyed (Nasha) Ravana, Tenth house Guru killed

> Duryodhana and 12th house Guru sent Pandu to forest." It further

says

> that Bhishma was deprived of Kingdom on account of Guru in 2nd,

King

> Dasharath had to loose his Son Rama (Putrashoka) on account of Guru

> in 5th. Aja Raja had to suffer separation from his wife on account

of

> Guru in Seventh. Vishwamitra had to consume non eatables

(Abhakshya)

> on account of his Guru in 9th."

> >

> > Regards

> > Sarajit

> > -

> > Chandrashekhar

> > PNRazdan

> > Cc: Prafulla Gang ; vedic astrology

> > Wednesday, September 22, 2004 5:00 AM

> > Re: [vedic astrology] Re: 2nd house Jup in various

roles-

> -to Chandraji

> >

> >

> > Dear Razdan,

> >

> > Read BPHS again, Sage Parashara states opinion of Narada in

> Ghatika Lagna shloka, refers to opinions of the learned (not

Brahma)

> in shloka 15 Ch.11, shloka 15 Ch.12. First shloka of Bhava Pada

> Adhyaya again mentions that he is telling the special effects of

Pada

> as told by other Sages (again not Brahma). He he also mentions

> opinion of others in first shloka of Karaka Adhyaya. The great Sage

> has in almost all Adhyayas given credit to other learneds in one or

> other of the shlokas, besides what Maitreya himself said to Sage

> Parashara in the beginning of Ashtakavarga Adhyaya. In Shloka 1 of

> that Adhyaya Maitreya clearly says that Parashara has given

opinions

> of many Rishis and Acharyas. So saying that Parashara only told

what

> had been revealed to him by Lord Brahma would be showing disrespect

> to the Great sage who had the magnanimity to give credit to other

> Rishis and Acharyas.

> >

> > Since you are questioning veracity and authority of the

shlokas

> that I quoted, I would like to give you the Texts in which the

> shlokas appear. If you read Tatvapradeepjataka and Chamatkaar

> Chintamani you will find them. The first text has the shlokas and

the

> later again mentions same shlokas. If you read Chamatkar Chintamani

> further you will find Jupiter giving harm to at least one

indication

> of each of the houses/bhavas he occupies. It also mentions a shloka

> from Purana which says:

> >

> > " Lord Rama had to undergo vanvaas on account of Guru in

Lagna,

> Guru in third sent Bali to Patala. Guru in fourth tested Satwa of

> King Harishchandra, Guru in sixth made Draupadi face Cheerharana.

> Guru in eighth destroyed (Nasha) Ravana, Tenth house Guru killed

> Duryodhana and 12th house Guru sent Pandu to forest." It further

says

> that Bhishma was deprived of Kingdom on account of Guru in 2nd,

King

> Dasharath had to loose his Son Rama (Putrashoka) on account of Guru

> in 5th. Aja Raja had to suffer separation from his wife on account

of

> Guru in Seventh. Vishwamitra had to consume non eatables

(Abhakshya)

> on account of his Guru in 9th."

> >

> > I would not like to respond to your other comments but would

like

> to mention here that the group is formed with an intention of

> learning and discussing principles of astrology. I do not

> to your assumption of astrology being a rigid science not open to

> interpretation. Some of your comments are uncalled for.

> > Chandrashekhar.

> >

> > PNRazdan wrote:

> >

> > Dear Chandarshekhar,

> > There is nothing amusing in my reasoning. Parashara is quoting no

> > ordinary Muni but Lord Brahma himself which gave us the

> BPHS.Similarly

> > Prithuysas is quoting his father the great Vrahmihir which gave

us

> the

> > Horasastra. Equating your shaloka quoting a nameless sage (not

> sages as

> > I said earlier, but only one sage-I was incorrect because the

noun

> and

> > verb is singular) would be like showing candle to the Sun.

> > I dont think this discussion is going to serve any purpose. You

are

> not

> > prepared to reveal the origin of the shalok you are so much

> depending

> > upon. By now it seems it is something casually said to which I

> attached

> > more than necessary importance. You seem to have attained the

role

> of

> > some sort of a master in this group wanting your disciples to

hunt

> for

> > themselves what you hint at. But I dont think this is an Ashram.

> This

> > is a forum of discussion where an academic discussion takes place

> > openly without reservations. Or possibly there may be other

reasons

> for

> > you not to come out openly.

> > The moral of this story however is clear. Astrology is a science.

It

> > has a method. Under this method several books have all along

treated

> > Jup as a benefic planet and all interpretations are based on this

> > principle with modifications depending on its functionality,

place,

> > lordship, strength etc etc. If you now put forth a crazy idea that

> > Jupiter is a malefic or malefic like planet ( destroys the house

it

> is

> > placed in), it turns the science from a method into a madness. It

> will

> > put doubts into the minds of all astrologists while interpreting

its

> > effects, particularly on young minds aspiring to learn jyotish.

> Already

> > I see a discussion started on these lines on this group which in

my

> > opinion is energy wasted on a wrong notion. Everytime one sees

Jup

> in a

> > house, a doubt will arise as to whether it is good or bad. Some

will

> > associate it with good they had in that house and others with

> whatever

> > bad they had.

> >

> > So if you are determined to reap cheap publicity by making

radical,

> > unauthenticated and unconventional "advices", you may do so as

this

> is

> > a free forum. But the least I can say is that this would be the

> > greatest disservice to the field of Vedic Astrology.

> > My humble suggestion to learned members would be to accept any

> advice

> > only after their own study and research and use dependable

> commentators

> > like Raman, Rao etc.for clarifications. It would be fair to treat

> any

> > advice seriously only if it is backed up by its source so as to

make

> > independent verification possible unless the author says it to be

> his

> > own research/ experience.

> >

> > Chandarshekharji, so let us decide to close this discussion as

> friends

> > (not by coincidence are we both having Jup as lagnesh).

> > So far I didnot discuss specifics with you since I was on a

> headlines

> > discussion.

> > Let me now respond to your last two queries.The reference to Jup

in

> the

> > Second house discussion of BPHS has to be read in totality i.e

all

> the

> > three shalokas 1,2 and 3 and not the 3rd only. Let me give a gist

of

> > each here

> > First shaloka: Dhanesh in second, quadrants, trines is

> dhanvridhikarak

> > (wealth giving) in 6,8,12 opposite.

> > Second Shaloka: Benefics in 2nd house, conjunct or aspected by

> > benefics- wealth giving. Malefics in 2nd house opposite effect.

> Nowhere

> > is jupiter separated out as you claim to be.So long as it is

known

> as a

> > benefic, it qualifies to be a wealth giver according to this

> shaloka.

> > Third Shaloka: If 2nd lord is Jupiter and is also posited in the

> same

> > house. And if Mars is also placed with it, then the subject

becomes

> > wealthy. Period.

> > This does not mean that if Mars is not there, Jupiter alone will

> harm

> > the house. This is an implication which you are trying to make out

> > probably to make your Muni's dictum hold good. Parashara never

> means

> > it. He means to say that while a swagrahi jupiter in second is

> enough

> > to make one rich but with Mars there it adds to ones wealth. Mark

> the

> > sanskrit words "Vapi" meaning 'in addition".

> > And then you are contradicting your own self since even without

> Mars,

> > Jupiter would still be swagrahi which as per your shaloka is not

> bad.

> > So why Mars becomes necessary to support?

> > As regards your second point, I am unfortunately not getting the

> > shaloka since I have a different edition. There is no chapter on

> > Kakshya and I took it as Karkanshya Phal Adhyay which has no

shalok

> > wanting Jup to have support of benefics to give good results.

> > Sorry for the long mail. Regards

> > Pran Razdan

> >

> >

> > --- Chandrashekhar <boxdel> wrote:

> >

> >

> > Dear Razdan,

> > I am amused at the reasoning put forward by you that if some

author

> > quotes some other authority, he is not an authority on the

subject.

> > If

> > that be so all those you treat as authorities, including

Parashara,

> > Varahamihira (By the way I have not heard of Mantracharya) would

> also

> > be

> > reduced to the status of ignoramus. All of those who are treated

as

> > authorities have given opinions of others by either referring to

> > their

> > names or saying precisely what the shloka says that is "so say

> > Munis".

> > So rest assured none of the Acharyas and Pravartakas will tremble

> at

> > what I have stated. The reason I am not giving the name of the

> > authority

> > is I want people to read various texts and find out for

themselves.

> > There are numerous texts and it takes time to remember the name

of

> > author of each and every shloka one quotes is the other reason.

> > If you do not want to read commentaries, your choice of

> astrological

> > texts would be reduced to almost one or two as every author of

> note,

> > states at the beginning of his text that he is only telling what

> > others

> > have told before him in a more concise form, including Varaha

> Mihira.

> >

> > Maitreya also asks Parashara that as he has till now told

principles

> > of

> > astrology on the basis of what others have told he should give a

> > relatively easy method so that transit of planets could be used

for

> > prediction by those slow of grasp in the chapter on Ashtakavarga

in

> > BPHS.

> >

> > Could you explain the reason of shloka3 Chapter 13 of BPHS? What

is

> > the

> > reason for Parashara to qualify Jupiter's being Lord of the 2nd

> when

> > placed in 2nd or needing to be with Mars there to make one

wealthy,

> > implying that Jupiter in other cases by its mere presence in 2nd

> > would

> > not be capable of conferring wealth on one. I hope you do not

> dispute

> >

> > knowledge of Parashara himself or think he is quoting without

> > authority.

> > While at BPHS you may also like to reason out why CH.43 shloka 48

> > tells

> > that for Jupiter to give Kakshya Vridhi it has to be aspected by

a

> > benefic when in Lagna or 7th house. Think why Jupiter by himself

> does

> >

> > not give Kakshya Vriddhi in longevity.

> > Chandrashekhar.

> >

> > PNRazdan wrote:

> >

> >

> > Dear Chandarshekhar,

> >

> > As already informed I have already read the shalok quoted by you

in

> > support of your contention.

> >

> > jIv> SvSwanhNta vdit muinvra +iòrSy àzSta,

> > saEir SvSwanpal> prmÉykir +iòrSy ànòa.

> >

> > But please understand, this shaloka by itself does not establish

the

> > thesis you are trying to put forward. It has to be backed up by

the

> > author, his standing in the astrological field, the time when it

was

> > said and the context in which it was said. Literally translated,

the

> > Shalok means "Guru destroys the house it is placed in and

dignifies

> >

> > the

> >

> > house it aspects, so say the sages. Saturn protects the house it

is

> >

> > in

> >

> > while its dangerous aspect destroys it". Mark the words "vdit

> >

> > muinvra"

> >

> > i.e.so say the sages. This means that this shaloka too is somebody

> > else's quote and not that of its author. Who is the author of this

> > blatant theory after all?

> >

> > Chandarshekharji, you are making an important and revolutionary

> > statement which if followed shall change the entire structure of

> >

> > Vedic

> >

> > Astrology. (I am sure Parasara, Varamihir, Mantracharya all must

> >

> > have

> >

> > stumbled in swargloka after hearing this shaloka). You have

> >

> > therefore

> >

> > to back it up equally strongly. Sanskrit shalokas can be written

by

> > anybody, even a primary class student studying sanskrit. It does

not

> > mean we should accept any shalok blindly simply because it is

> >

> > written

> >

> > in sanskrit.

> >

> > At one stage you said this is a shaloka and we need not go into

its

> > reasoning. OK but tell us the name of the author who is so

respected

> >

> > in

> >

> > this field that we donot question his authority.

> > In your other mail you have advised me to read commentaries of Pt.

> > Gopeshkumar Oza and Pt. Kedardatt Joshi. Why should I read

> >

> > commentaries

> >

> > and not the original shalokas if I know sanskrit very well.

> >

> > So, as a learned Guru please favour all of us with the background

> > information on the shaloka complete with your masterly reasoning

why

> > you are so convinced of its truth and applicability in the lives

of

> > human beings.

> > I shall not go into the discussion of individual charts as it is

> >

> > common

> >

> > knowledge that results depend on many factors. If you are now

> >

> > holding

> >

> > Jup responsible for any bad thing that happened in the lives of

> >

> > these

> >

> > people, then the debate would be endless. Besides Lakshmi has very

> > nicely handled this issue and replied the post point by point.

> >

> > Pran Razdan

> >

> > --- Chandrashekhar <boxdel> wrote:

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > Dear Razdan,

> > I have already given the relevant shloka and others have given

> >

> > other

> >

> > shlokas too. I have already advised you to go through the archives

> > but

> > it appears you have not done so. Have you found shloka about

> > Jupiter's

> > position in certain Rasis giving problems in progeny at least?

> >

> > You have mentioned many personalities, how much do you know about

> > their

> > personal lives to say that Jupiter has not harmed the house that

> > occupies? Does A.B. Vajpayee has his own family? Check up. Also

> >

> > check

> >

> > up

> > what lata Mangeshkar did to her sister to understand what Guru in

> > Lagna

> > can do.

> >

> > I have not made any sweeping statement. If you read the list, many

> > have

> > agreed to what I have said from their own experience. I have also

> > said

> > that one has to apply the dictum in proper perspective to get

> >

> > correct

> >

> > results. For this one has to know all the dictums, like all

planets

> > give

> > good results in own house and all planets are capable of giving

> >

> > good

> >

> > results in 11th house. I think I have written umpteen times that

no

> >

> > principle can be applied on standalone basis but has to be applied

> > after

> > taking into consideration all variables.

> > The case mentioned by dear Lakshmi have Jupiter in own house or

> > Saturn

> > who protects the house is also conjunct Jupiter, if I remember

> >

> > right.

> >

> > The dictum being Sthana Bhrashta karoti JeevaH , sthana rakshati

> > mandaH,

> > the results that are stated to be obtained are in keeping with the

> > dictum.

> > Chandrashekhar.

> >

> >

> > PNRazdan wrote:

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > Dear Chandrashekhar,

> > I have been reading your posts on this subject all along but

> >

> > failed

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > to

> >

> >

> >

> > get your source of conviction.

> > We all agree that Jup too has its unfavourable positions and

> >

> >

> >

> > traits.

> >

> >

> >

> > We know it is a stronger Maraka, we also know that it is a

> >

> >

> >

> > functional

> >

> >

> >

> > malefic in Taurus, Libra, Capri etc laganas. We also know that it

> >

> >

> >

> > gets

> >

> >

> >

> > KP dosh in quadrant lordship, although KPdosh means only holding

> > beneficial/malefic qualities, nothing more, but we extend the

> >

> >

> >

> > argument

> >

> >

> >

> > further by making them good or bad. These are well established

> >

> >

> > === message truncated ===

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > _______________________________

> >

> > Express yourself with Y! Messenger! Free. Download now.

> > http://messenger.

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > Group info: vedic-

astrology/info.html

> >

> > To UNSUBSCRIBE: Blank mail to vedic astrology-

>

> >

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

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > Sponsor

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

--

> ----------

> > Links

> >

> >

> > vedic astrology/

> >

> > b..

> > vedic astrology

> >

> > c.. Terms

of

> Service.

[Guest guest]

Would you be kind enough to post the articles to the list so that we could have

the benefit of knowing the benefic and malefic effects of those planets.

Thanking you.

 

Davidnameisego <nameisego > wrote:

Dear Learned Friends ,Self has done some work on both Rahu, Guru and Rashis

which clearly shows there is more to it than meets the eye.If interested to

know, undersigned can post some articles of research here which may throw some

light on this issue.RgdsTatvam-Asivedic astrology,

"Sarajit Poddar" <sarajit@s...> wrote:> || Jaya Jagannath ||> Dear

Chandrashekhar,> > Thank you for the comment from the puranas.> " Lord Rama

had to undergo vanvaas on account of Guru in Lagna, Guru in third sent Bali to

Patala. Guru in fourth tested Satwa of King Harishchandra, Guru in sixth made

Draupadi face Cheerharana. Guru in eighth destroyed (Nasha) Ravana, Tenth house

Guru killed Duryodhana and 12th house Guru sent Pandu to forest." It further

says

that Bhishma was deprived of Kingdom on account of Guru in 2nd, King Dasharath

had to loose his Son Rama (Putrashoka) on account of Guru in 5th. Aja Raja had

to suffer separation from his wife on account of Guru in Seventh. Vishwamitra

had to consume non eatables (Abhakshya) on account of his Guru in 9th."> >

Regards> Sarajit> - > Chandrashekhar >

PNRazdan > Cc: Prafulla Gang ; vedic astrology > Sent:

Wednesday, September 22, 2004 5:00 AM> Re: [vedic astrology] Re: 2nd

house Jup in various roles--to Chandraji> > > Dear Razdan,> > Read BPHS

again, Sage Parashara states opinion of Narada in Ghatika Lagna shloka, refers

to opinions of the learned (not Brahma) in shloka 15 Ch.11, shloka 15 Ch.12.

First

shloka of Bhava Pada Adhyaya again mentions that he is telling the special

effects of Pada as told by other Sages (again not Brahma). He he also mentions

opinion of others in first shloka of Karaka Adhyaya. The great Sage has in

almost all Adhyayas given credit to other learneds in one or other of the

shlokas, besides what Maitreya himself said to Sage Parashara in the beginning

of Ashtakavarga Adhyaya. In Shloka 1 of that Adhyaya Maitreya clearly says

that Parashara has given opinions of many Rishis and Acharyas. So saying that

Parashara only told what had been revealed to him by Lord Brahma would be

showing disrespect to the Great sage who had the magnanimity to give credit to

other Rishis and Acharyas.> > Since you are questioning veracity and

authority of the shlokas that I quoted, I would like to give you the Texts in

which the shlokas appear. If you read Tatvapradeepjataka and

Chamatkaar Chintamani you will find them. The first text has the shlokas and the

later again mentions same shlokas. If you read Chamatkar Chintamani further you

will find Jupiter giving harm to at least one indication of each of the

houses/bhavas he occupies. It also mentions a shloka from Purana which says:> >

" Lord Rama had to undergo vanvaas on account of Guru in Lagna, Guru in third

sent Bali to Patala. Guru in fourth tested Satwa of King Harishchandra, Guru in

sixth made Draupadi face Cheerharana. Guru in eighth destroyed (Nasha) Ravana,

Tenth house Guru killed Duryodhana and 12th house Guru sent Pandu to forest."

It further says that Bhishma was deprived of Kingdom on account of Guru in 2nd,

King Dasharath had to loose his Son Rama (Putrashoka) on account of Guru in 5th.

Aja Raja had to suffer separation from his wife on account of Guru in Seventh.

Vishwamitra had to consume non eatables

(Abhakshya) on account of his Guru in 9th."> > I would not like to respond to

your other comments but would like to mention here that the group is formed

with an intention of learning and discussing principles of astrology. I do not

to your assumption of astrology being a rigid science not open to

interpretation. Some of your comments are uncalled for.> Chandrashekhar.> >

PNRazdan wrote:> > Dear Chandarshekhar,> There is nothing amusing in my

reasoning. Parashara is quoting no> ordinary Muni but Lord Brahma himself which

gave us the BPHS.Similarly> Prithuysas is quoting his father the great Vrahmihir

which gave us the> Horasastra. Equating your shaloka quoting a nameless sage

(not sages as> I said earlier, but only one sage-I was incorrect because the

noun and> verb is singular) would be like showing candle to

the Sun.> I dont think this discussion is going to serve any purpose. You are

not> prepared to reveal the origin of the shalok you are so much depending>

upon. By now it seems it is something casually said to which I attached> more

than necessary importance. You seem to have attained the role of> some sort of

a master in this group wanting your disciples to hunt for> themselves what you

hint at. But I dont think this is an Ashram. This> is a forum of discussion

where an academic discussion takes place> openly without reservations. Or

possibly there may be other reasons for> you not to come out openly.> The moral

of this story however is clear. Astrology is a science. It> has a method. Under

this method several books have all along treated> Jup as a benefic planet and

all interpretations are based on this> principle with modifications depending

on its

functionality, place,> lordship, strength etc etc. If you now put forth a crazy

idea that> Jupiter is a malefic or malefic like planet ( destroys the house it

is> placed in), it turns the science from a method into a madness. It will> put

doubts into the minds of all astrologists while interpreting its> effects,

particularly on young minds aspiring to learn jyotish. Already> I see a

discussion started on these lines on this group which in my> opinion is energy

wasted on a wrong notion. Everytime one sees Jup in a> house, a doubt will

arise as to whether it is good or bad. Some will> associate it with good they

had in that house and others with whatever> bad they had.> > So if you are

determined to reap cheap publicity by making radical,> unauthenticated and

unconventional "advices", you may do so as this is> a free forum. But the least

I can say is that this

would be the> greatest disservice to the field of Vedic Astrology.> My humble

suggestion to learned members would be to accept any advice > only after their

own study and research and use dependable commentators> like Raman, Rao etc.for

clarifications. It would be fair to treat any> advice seriously only if it is

backed up by its source so as to make> independent verification possible unless

the author says it to be his> own research/ experience. > > Chandarshekharji, so

let us decide to close this discussion as friends> (not by coincidence are we

both having Jup as lagnesh).> So far I didnot discuss specifics with you since

I was on a headlines> discussion. > Let me now respond to your last two

queries.The reference to Jup in the> Second house discussion of BPHS has to be

read in totality i.e all the> three shalokas 1,2 and 3 and not the 3rd only.

Let me give a gist of> each here> First shaloka: Dhanesh in second, quadrants,

trines is dhanvridhikarak> (wealth giving) in 6,8,12 opposite.> Second Shaloka:

Benefics in 2nd house, conjunct or aspected by> benefics- wealth giving.

Malefics in 2nd house opposite effect. Nowhere> is jupiter separated out as you

claim to be.So long as it is known as a> benefic, it qualifies to be a wealth

giver according to this shaloka.> Third Shaloka: If 2nd lord is Jupiter and is

also posited in the same> house. And if Mars is also placed with it, then the

subject becomes> wealthy. Period.> This does not mean that if Mars is not

there, Jupiter alone will harm> the house. This is an implication which you are

trying to make out> probably to make your Muni's dictum hold good. Parashara

never means> it. He means to say that while a swagrahi jupiter in second is

enough> to make one rich but with Mars there it adds to ones wealth. Mark the>

sanskrit words "Vapi" meaning 'in addition".> And then you are contradicting

your own self since even without Mars,> Jupiter would still be swagrahi which

as per your shaloka is not bad.> So why Mars becomes necessary to support?> As

regards your second point, I am unfortunately not getting the> shaloka since I

have a different edition. There is no chapter on> Kakshya and I took it as

Karkanshya Phal Adhyay which has no shalok> wanting Jup to have support of

benefics to give good results.> Sorry for the long mail. Regards> Pran Razdan>

> > --- Chandrashekhar <boxdel> wrote:> > > Dear Razdan,> I am amused at

the reasoning put forward by you that if some author > quotes some other

authority, he is not an authority on the subject.>

If > that be so all those you treat as authorities, including Parashara, >

Varahamihira (By the way I have not heard of Mantracharya) would also> be >

reduced to the status of ignoramus. All of those who are treated as >

authorities have given opinions of others by either referring to> their > names

or saying precisely what the shloka says that is "so say> Munis". > So rest

assured none of the Acharyas and Pravartakas will tremble at > what I have

stated. The reason I am not giving the name of the> authority > is I want

people to read various texts and find out for themselves. > There are numerous

texts and it takes time to remember the name of > author of each and every

shloka one quotes is the other reason.> If you do not want to read

commentaries, your choice of astrological > texts would be reduced to almost

one or two as every author of note, >

states at the beginning of his text that he is only telling what> others > have

told before him in a more concise form, including Varaha Mihira.> > Maitreya

also asks Parashara that as he has till now told principles> of > astrology on

the basis of what others have told he should give a > relatively easy method so

that transit of planets could be used for > prediction by those slow of grasp in

the chapter on Ashtakavarga in> BPHS.> > Could you explain the reason of shloka3

Chapter 13 of BPHS? What is> the > reason for Parashara to qualify Jupiter's

being Lord of the 2nd when > placed in 2nd or needing to be with Mars there to

make one wealthy, > implying that Jupiter in other cases by its mere presence

in 2nd> would > not be capable of conferring wealth on one. I hope you do not

dispute> > knowledge of Parashara himself or think he is

quoting without> authority. > While at BPHS you may also like to reason out why

CH.43 shloka 48> tells > that for Jupiter to give Kakshya Vridhi it has to be

aspected by a > benefic when in Lagna or 7th house. Think why Jupiter by

himself does> > not give Kakshya Vriddhi in longevity.> Chandrashekhar.> >

PNRazdan wrote:> > > Dear Chandarshekhar,> > As already informed I have

already read the shalok quoted by you in> support of your contention. > > jIv>

SvSwanhNta vdit muinvra +iòrSy àzSta,> saEir SvSwanpal> prmÉykir +iòrSy ànòa.>

> But please understand, this shaloka by itself does not establish the> thesis

you are trying to put forward. It has to be backed up by the> author, his

standing in the astrological field, the time when it was> said and the context

in which it was said.

Literally translated, the> Shalok means "Guru destroys the house it is placed in

and dignifies> > the> > house it aspects, so say the sages. Saturn

protects the house it is> > in> > while its dangerous aspect destroys

it". Mark the words "vdit> > muinvra"> > i.e.so say the sages. This

means that this shaloka too is somebody> else's quote and not that of its

author. Who is the author of this> blatant theory after all?> >

Chandarshekharji, you are making an important and revolutionary> statement

which if followed shall change the entire structure of> > Vedic> >

Astrology. (I am sure Parasara,

Varamihir, Mantracharya all must> > have> > stumbled in swargloka

after hearing this shaloka). You have> > therefore> > to back it up

equally strongly. Sanskrit shalokas can be written by> anybody, even a primary

class student studying sanskrit. It does not> mean we should accept any shalok

blindly simply because it is> > written> > in sanskrit.> > At one

stage you said this is a shaloka and we need not go into its> reasoning. OK but

tell us the name of the author who is so respected> > in> > this field

that we donot question his authority. > In your other mail you have advised me

to read

commentaries of Pt.> Gopeshkumar Oza and Pt. Kedardatt Joshi. Why should I read>

> commentaries> > and not the original shalokas if I know sanskrit

very well. > > So, as a learned Guru please favour all of us with the

background> information on the shaloka complete with your masterly reasoning

why> you are so convinced of its truth and applicability in the lives of> human

beings.> I shall not go into the discussion of individual charts as it is>

> common> > knowledge that results depend on many factors. If you are now>

> holding> > Jup responsible for any bad thing that happened in the

lives of> >

these> > people, then the debate would be endless. Besides Lakshmi has very>

nicely handled this issue and replied the post point by point.> > Pran Razdan> >

--- Chandrashekhar <boxdel> wrote:> > > > > Dear Razdan,> I have

already given the relevant shloka and others have given> > other >

> shlokas too. I have already advised you to go through the archives> but > it

appears you have not done so. Have you found shloka about> Jupiter's > position

in certain Rasis giving problems in progeny at least?> > You have mentioned many

personalities, how much do you know about> their > personal lives to say that

Jupiter has not harmed the house that > occupies? Does

A.B. Vajpayee has his own family? Check up. Also> > check> > up >

what lata Mangeshkar did to her sister to understand what Guru in> Lagna > can

do.> > I have not made any sweeping statement. If you read the list, many> have

> agreed to what I have said from their own experience. I have also> said > that

one has to apply the dictum in proper perspective to get> > correct>

> results. For this one has to know all the dictums, like all planets> give >

good results in own house and all planets are capable of giving> > good

> > results in 11th house. I think I have written umpteen times that

no> > principle can be applied on standalone basis but has to be

applied> after > taking into consideration all variables.> The case mentioned

by dear Lakshmi have Jupiter in own house or> Saturn > who protects the house

is also conjunct Jupiter, if I remember> > right.> > The dictum

being Sthana Bhrashta karoti JeevaH , sthana rakshati> mandaH, > the results

that are stated to be obtained are in keeping with the> dictum.>

Chandrashekhar.> > > PNRazdan wrote:> > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar, >

I have been reading your posts on this subject all along but> >

failed> > > > > to> > > > get your source of

conviction.> We all agree that Jup too has its unfavourable positions and>

> > > traits.> > > > We know it is a stronger Maraka, we

also know that it is a> > > > functional> > > >

malefic in Taurus, Libra, Capri etc laganas. We also know that

it> > > > gets> > > > KP dosh in quadrant lordship,

although KPdosh means only holding > beneficial/malefic qualities, nothing

more, but we extend the> > > > argument> > > >

further by making them good or bad. These are well established> >

> === message truncated ===> > > > >

_______________________________> > Express

yourself with Y! Messenger! Free. Download now. > http://messenger.> >

> > > 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> > >

vedic astrology/> > b.. To

from this group, send an email to:>

vedic astrology> > c.. Your use of

Groups is subject to the Archives:

vedic astrologyGroup info:

vedic astrology/info.htmlTo UNSUBSCRIBE: Blank

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

shine on us .......

 

 

[Guest guest]

Dear Anuj,

I would like to receive your articles.

Chandrashekhar.

nameisego wrote:

Dear Learned Friends ,

Self has done some work on both Rahu, Guru and Rashis which clearly

shows there is more to it than meets the eye.

If interested to know, undersigned can post some articles of research

here which may throw some light on this issue.

Rgds

Tatvam-Asi

vedic astrology, "Sarajit Poddar"

<sarajit@s...> wrote:

> || Jaya Jagannath ||

> Dear Chandrashekhar,

>

> Thank you for the comment from the puranas.

> " Lord Rama had to undergo vanvaas on account of Guru in Lagna,

Guru in third sent Bali to Patala. Guru in fourth tested Satwa of

King Harishchandra, Guru in sixth made Draupadi face Cheerharana.

Guru in eighth destroyed (Nasha) Ravana, Tenth house Guru killed

Duryodhana and 12th house Guru sent Pandu to forest." It further says

that Bhishma was deprived of Kingdom on account of Guru in 2nd, King

Dasharath had to loose his Son Rama (Putrashoka) on account of Guru

in 5th. Aja Raja had to suffer separation from his wife on account of

Guru in Seventh. Vishwamitra had to consume non eatables (Abhakshya)

on account of his Guru in 9th."

>

> Regards

> Sarajit

> -

> Chandrashekhar

> PNRazdan

> Cc: Prafulla Gang ; vedic astrology

> Wednesday, September 22, 2004 5:00 AM

> Re: [vedic astrology] Re: 2nd house Jup in various

roles-

-to Chandraji

>

>

> Dear Razdan,

>

> Read BPHS again, Sage Parashara states opinion of Narada in

Ghatika Lagna shloka, refers to opinions of the learned (not Brahma)

in shloka 15 Ch.11, shloka 15 Ch.12. First shloka of Bhava Pada

Adhyaya again mentions that he is telling the special effects of Pada

as told by other Sages (again not Brahma). He he also mentions

opinion of others in first shloka of Karaka Adhyaya. The great Sage

has in almost all Adhyayas given credit to other learneds in one or

other of the shlokas, besides what Maitreya himself said to Sage

Parashara in the beginning of Ashtakavarga Adhyaya. In Shloka 1 of

that Adhyaya Maitreya clearly says that Parashara has given opinions

of many Rishis and Acharyas. So saying that Parashara only told what

had been revealed to him by Lord Brahma would be showing disrespect

to the Great sage who had the magnanimity to give credit to other

Rishis and Acharyas.

>

> Since you are questioning veracity and authority of the shlokas

that I quoted, I would like to give you the Texts in which the

shlokas appear. If you read Tatvapradeepjataka and Chamatkaar

Chintamani you will find them. The first text has the shlokas and the

later again mentions same shlokas. If you read Chamatkar Chintamani

further you will find Jupiter giving harm to at least one indication

of each of the houses/bhavas he occupies. It also mentions a shloka

from Purana which says:

>

> " Lord Rama had to undergo vanvaas on account of Guru in Lagna,

Guru in third sent Bali to Patala. Guru in fourth tested Satwa of

King Harishchandra, Guru in sixth made Draupadi face Cheerharana.

Guru in eighth destroyed (Nasha) Ravana, Tenth house Guru killed

Duryodhana and 12th house Guru sent Pandu to forest." It further says

that Bhishma was deprived of Kingdom on account of Guru in 2nd, King

Dasharath had to loose his Son Rama (Putrashoka) on account of Guru

in 5th. Aja Raja had to suffer separation from his wife on account of

Guru in Seventh. Vishwamitra had to consume non eatables (Abhakshya)

on account of his Guru in 9th."

>

> I would not like to respond to your other comments but would

like

to mention here that the group is formed with an intention of

learning and discussing principles of astrology. I do not

to your assumption of astrology being a rigid science not open to

interpretation. Some of your comments are uncalled for.

> Chandrashekhar.

>

> PNRazdan wrote:

>

> Dear Chandarshekhar,

> There is nothing amusing in my reasoning. Parashara is quoting no

> ordinary Muni but Lord Brahma himself which gave us the

BPHS.Similarly

> Prithuysas is quoting his father the great Vrahmihir which gave us

the

> Horasastra. Equating your shaloka quoting a nameless sage (not

sages as

> I said earlier, but only one sage-I was incorrect because the noun

and

> verb is singular) would be like showing candle to the Sun.

> I dont think this discussion is going to serve any purpose. You

are

not

> prepared to reveal the origin of the shalok you are so much

depending

> upon. By now it seems it is something casually said to which I

attached

> more than necessary importance. You seem to have attained the role

of

> some sort of a master in this group wanting your disciples to hunt

for

> themselves what you hint at. But I dont think this is an Ashram.

This

> is a forum of discussion where an academic discussion takes place

> openly without reservations. Or possibly there may be other

reasons

for

> you not to come out openly.

> The moral of this story however is clear. Astrology is a science.

It

> has a method. Under this method several books have all along

treated

> Jup as a benefic planet and all interpretations are based on this

> principle with modifications depending on its functionality,

place,

> lordship, strength etc etc. If you now put forth a crazy idea that

> Jupiter is a malefic or malefic like planet ( destroys the house

it

is

> placed in), it turns the science from a method into a madness. It

will

> put doubts into the minds of all astrologists while interpreting

its

> effects, particularly on young minds aspiring to learn jyotish.

Already

> I see a discussion started on these lines on this group which in my

> opinion is energy wasted on a wrong notion. Everytime one sees Jup

in a

> house, a doubt will arise as to whether it is good or bad. Some

will

> associate it with good they had in that house and others with

whatever

> bad they had.

>

> So if you are determined to reap cheap publicity by making radical,

> unauthenticated and unconventional "advices", you may do so as

this

is

> a free forum. But the least I can say is that this would be the

> greatest disservice to the field of Vedic Astrology.

> My humble suggestion to learned members would be to accept any

advice

> only after their own study and research and use dependable

commentators

> like Raman, Rao etc.for clarifications. It would be fair to treat

any

> advice seriously only if it is backed up by its source so as to

make

> independent verification possible unless the author says it to be

his

> own research/ experience.

>

> Chandarshekharji, so let us decide to close this discussion as

friends

> (not by coincidence are we both having Jup as lagnesh).

> So far I didnot discuss specifics with you since I was on a

headlines

> discussion.

> Let me now respond to your last two queries.The reference to Jup

in

the

> Second house discussion of BPHS has to be read in totality i.e all

the

> three shalokas 1,2 and 3 and not the 3rd only. Let me give a gist

of

> each here

> First shaloka: Dhanesh in second, quadrants, trines is

dhanvridhikarak

> (wealth giving) in 6,8,12 opposite.

> Second Shaloka: Benefics in 2nd house, conjunct or aspected by

> benefics- wealth giving. Malefics in 2nd house opposite effect.

Nowhere

> is jupiter separated out as you claim to be.So long as it is known

as a

> benefic, it qualifies to be a wealth giver according to this

shaloka.

> Third Shaloka: If 2nd lord is Jupiter and is also posited in the

same

> house. And if Mars is also placed with it, then the subject becomes

> wealthy. Period.

> This does not mean that if Mars is not there, Jupiter alone will

harm

> the house. This is an implication which you are trying to make out

> probably to make your Muni's dictum hold good. Parashara never

means

> it. He means to say that while a swagrahi jupiter in second is

enough

> to make one rich but with Mars there it adds to ones wealth. Mark

the

> sanskrit words "Vapi" meaning 'in addition".

> And then you are contradicting your own self since even without

Mars,

> Jupiter would still be swagrahi which as per your shaloka is not

bad.

> So why Mars becomes necessary to support?

> As regards your second point, I am unfortunately not getting the

> shaloka since I have a different edition. There is no chapter on

> Kakshya and I took it as Karkanshya Phal Adhyay which has no shalok

> wanting Jup to have support of benefics to give good results.

> Sorry for the long mail. Regards

> Pran Razdan

>

>

> --- Chandrashekhar <boxdel> wrote:

>

>

> Dear Razdan,

> I am amused at the reasoning put forward by you that if some

author

> quotes some other authority, he is not an authority on the subject.

> If

> that be so all those you treat as authorities, including

Parashara,

> Varahamihira (By the way I have not heard of Mantracharya) would

also

> be

> reduced to the status of ignoramus. All of those who are treated

as

> authorities have given opinions of others by either referring to

> their

> names or saying precisely what the shloka says that is "so say

> Munis".

> So rest assured none of the Acharyas and Pravartakas will tremble

at

> what I have stated. The reason I am not giving the name of the

> authority

> is I want people to read various texts and find out for

themselves.

> There are numerous texts and it takes time to remember the name of

> author of each and every shloka one quotes is the other reason.

> If you do not want to read commentaries, your choice of

astrological

> texts would be reduced to almost one or two as every author of

note,

> states at the beginning of his text that he is only telling what

> others

> have told before him in a more concise form, including Varaha

Mihira.

>

> Maitreya also asks Parashara that as he has till now told

principles

> of

> astrology on the basis of what others have told he should give a

> relatively easy method so that transit of planets could be used

for

> prediction by those slow of grasp in the chapter on Ashtakavarga in

> BPHS.

>

> Could you explain the reason of shloka3 Chapter 13 of BPHS? What is

> the

> reason for Parashara to qualify Jupiter's being Lord of the 2nd

when

> placed in 2nd or needing to be with Mars there to make one

wealthy,

> implying that Jupiter in other cases by its mere presence in 2nd

> would

> not be capable of conferring wealth on one. I hope you do not

dispute

>

> knowledge of Parashara himself or think he is quoting without

> authority.

> While at BPHS you may also like to reason out why CH.43 shloka 48

> tells

> that for Jupiter to give Kakshya Vridhi it has to be aspected by a

> benefic when in Lagna or 7th house. Think why Jupiter by himself

does

>

> not give Kakshya Vriddhi in longevity.

> Chandrashekhar.

>

> PNRazdan wrote:

>

>

> Dear Chandarshekhar,

>

> As already informed I have already read the shalok quoted by you in

> support of your contention.

>

> jIv> SvSwanhNta vdit muinvra +iòrSy àzSta,

> saEir SvSwanpal> prmÉykir +iòrSy ànòa.

>

> But please understand, this shaloka by itself does not establish

the

> thesis you are trying to put forward. It has to be backed up by the

> author, his standing in the astrological field, the time when it

was

> said and the context in which it was said. Literally translated,

the

> Shalok means "Guru destroys the house it is placed in and dignifies

>

> the

>

> house it aspects, so say the sages. Saturn protects the house it is

>

> in

>

> while its dangerous aspect destroys it". Mark the words "vdit

>

> muinvra"

>

> i.e.so say the sages. This means that this shaloka too is somebody

> else's quote and not that of its author. Who is the author of this

> blatant theory after all?

>

> Chandarshekharji, you are making an important and revolutionary

> statement which if followed shall change the entire structure of

>

> Vedic

>

> Astrology. (I am sure Parasara, Varamihir, Mantracharya all must

>

> have

>

> stumbled in swargloka after hearing this shaloka). You have

>

> therefore

>

> to back it up equally strongly. Sanskrit shalokas can be written by

> anybody, even a primary class student studying sanskrit. It does

not

> mean we should accept any shalok blindly simply because it is

>

> written

>

> in sanskrit.

>

> At one stage you said this is a shaloka and we need not go into its

> reasoning. OK but tell us the name of the author who is so

respected

>

> in

>

> this field that we donot question his authority.

> In your other mail you have advised me to read commentaries of Pt.

> Gopeshkumar Oza and Pt. Kedardatt Joshi. Why should I read

>

> commentaries

>

> and not the original shalokas if I know sanskrit very well.

>

> So, as a learned Guru please favour all of us with the background

> information on the shaloka complete with your masterly reasoning

why

> you are so convinced of its truth and applicability in the lives of

> human beings.

> I shall not go into the discussion of individual charts as it is

>

> common

>

> knowledge that results depend on many factors. If you are now

>

> holding

>

> Jup responsible for any bad thing that happened in the lives of

>

> these

>

> people, then the debate would be endless. Besides Lakshmi has very

> nicely handled this issue and replied the post point by point.

>

> Pran Razdan

>

> --- Chandrashekhar <boxdel> wrote:

>

>

>

>

> Dear Razdan,

> I have already given the relevant shloka and others have given

>

> other

>

> shlokas too. I have already advised you to go through the archives

> but

> it appears you have not done so. Have you found shloka about

> Jupiter's

> position in certain Rasis giving problems in progeny at least?

>

> You have mentioned many personalities, how much do you know about

> their

> personal lives to say that Jupiter has not harmed the house that

> occupies? Does A.B. Vajpayee has his own family? Check up. Also

>

> check

>

> up

> what lata Mangeshkar did to her sister to understand what Guru in

> Lagna

> can do.

>

> I have not made any sweeping statement. If you read the list, many

> have

> agreed to what I have said from their own experience. I have also

> said

> that one has to apply the dictum in proper perspective to get

>

> correct

>

> results. For this one has to know all the dictums, like all planets

> give

> good results in own house and all planets are capable of giving

>

> good

>

> results in 11th house. I think I have written umpteen times that no

>

> principle can be applied on standalone basis but has to be applied

> after

> taking into consideration all variables.

> The case mentioned by dear Lakshmi have Jupiter in own house or

> Saturn

> who protects the house is also conjunct Jupiter, if I remember

>

> right.

>

> The dictum being Sthana Bhrashta karoti JeevaH , sthana rakshati

> mandaH,

> the results that are stated to be obtained are in keeping with the

> dictum.

> Chandrashekhar.

>

>

> PNRazdan wrote:

>

>

>

>

> Dear Chandrashekhar,

> I have been reading your posts on this subject all along but

>

> failed

>

>

>

>

> to

>

>

>

> get your source of conviction.

> We all agree that Jup too has its unfavourable positions and

>

>

>

> traits.

>

>

>

> We know it is a stronger Maraka, we also know that it is a

>

>

>

> functional

>

>

>

> malefic in Taurus, Libra, Capri etc laganas. We also know that it

>

>

>

> gets

>

>

>

> KP dosh in quadrant lordship, although KPdosh means only holding

> beneficial/malefic qualities, nothing more, but we extend the

>

>

>

> argument

>

>

>

> further by making them good or bad. These are well established

>

>

> === message truncated ===

>

>

>

>

> _______________________________

>

> Express yourself with Y! Messenger! Free. Download now.

> http://messenger.

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

> To UNSUBSCRIBE: Blank mail to vedic astrology-

 

>

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

>

>

>

>

> Sponsor

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

--

----------

> Links

>

>

> vedic astrology/

>

> b..

> vedic astrology

>

> c.. Terms

of

Service.