To Narasimha-ji

[Guest guest]

|| Hare Rama Krishna ||

 

Dear Narasimha-ji,

Pranam. You are completely right that Pradeep-ji's

camp is constantly giving excuses like experience etc. instead of

trying to show that D-charts are not effective means. You

conservatively said that Maharshi hasn't clearly about use of D-

charts. I understand that. However, earlier, I have pointed out to

Pradeep-ji that there are ample indications that Maharshi wants us

to treat Vargas just like Rasi chart. Please review the following

sloka and kindly tell me your view.

 

BPHS C.8.16 (last line) [G.C. Sharma]

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

 

Trimsamsake vichintyayevamatrapi grihavat smritam ||

 

Here the Sage gives clear instruction that Chaturthamsa, Navamamsa,

Trimsamsa etc. vargas chakras will be studies **like the 12 houses**

in the birth chart (rasi chakra). The word "grihavat", to me,

clearly hints that Trinsamsa and other chakras are to be treated as

Rasi chakra.

 

Kindly give your view about the interpretation of this sloka. The

message I wrote before is vedic-

astrology/message/55228 .

 

Warm Regards,

 

Sourav

=====================================================================

 

 

 

 

 

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

<pvr@c...> wrote:

> Namaste Sundeep,

>

> Let me throw back the question to you: Did Parasara explicitly

teach that houses should NOT be taken in navamsa?

>

> I never volunteered to offer a proof that houses can be taken in

navamsa.

>

> Given that a significant percentage of elders take houses in

navamsa and Pradeep's position of NOT taking houses in navamsa is an

extreme one, I'd place the burden of proof on him. He would need a

strong reason to reject houses in navamsa. I have not seen any

strong reasons presented. All I have seen is accusations

of "deformed basics" of others and some incomprehensible points

like "tampering" with planetary positions.

>

> If Saturn is in Libra in rasi chart, Saturn is exalted in rasi

chart. If Saturn is in at 11 deg in Cancer, he is not in his

exaltation sign. But we take Saturn to be exalted in navamsa

(including Pradeep). That is because Saturn would be in Libra in

navamsa and Libra is his exaltation sign.

>

> But if lagna is in Virgo in navamsa in this case and I say that

Saturn is in the 2nd house from lagna in navamsa, he would object

and say that these are not the same Virgo and Libra and I cannot

tamper with them. He says that Saturn is actually in 10:00-13:20 in

Cancer and not in Libra. But then, why can we take Saturn to be in

Libra in navamsa for the purpose of checking exaltation in navamsa?

If it is not the the same Libra, why take Saturn to be exalted

there? Why is it "not the same Libra" for counting signs and "the

same old Libra" for checking exaltation? I see totally inconsistent

thinking and in fact don't get Pradeep's objections. With that kind

of thinking, I am shocked that he has the guts to accuse others

of "deformed basics".

>

> If Pradeep's point is that he will not take houses in navamsa

because Parasara did not explicitly grant it, I can respect that

view and move on. But he is making a lot of points to show why he is

right and others have "deformed basics" and I am afraid I do not

understand his points.

>

> BTW, if you want to stop taking exaltation signs etc in navamsa

and other divisions, you will be in clear contradiction of Parasara,

as he clearly mentioned exaltation in divisions. So that is not an

option!

>

> I do not see any logical and consistent points in Pradeep's

objection and hence cannot engage in a discussion with him. I have

spent a lot of time on him this time and during previous times. In

my judgment, it is a waste of my time to engage any further with

him. If you understand his arguments, you please engage him.

>

> When I first made the point about twins, Pradeep said that lagna

in divisions could be used to differentiate twins. When houses were

not taken from lagna in divisions, I could not understand what he

was saying. I was hoping he would explain how he would use lagna in

divisions to distinguish between twins in the example I gave, but he

has evaded it.

>

> You are welcome to draw your conclusions and use the approach that

your intellect finds acceptable. But I argue that there is no way to

distinguish between twins and closely born people without

considering houses in navamsa and other divisions. I will not say

that this is "proof" of my approach. But, to me, this is a

motivation to stick to the approach taught bny tradition.

>

> Parasara did mention houses from the amsa of atma karaka and the

amsa of lagna. It strongly suggests to me that houses can be taken

in amsas. But, again, I want to clarify that I never offered

a "proof".

>

> May Jupiter's light shine on us,

> Narasimha

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

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

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

> SJC website: http://www.SriJagannath.org

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

>

> > Dear PVR,

> > I would love to see this issue clarified. I think Vijayadas has

> > perhaps not clearly conveyed to you what he wants to say. He

wants the

> > exact and unambiguous proof that Parashar instructs us to

construct D-

> > n CHARTS. If Parasara says "see parents in Dwadasamsa", why is

the

> > only logical possibility that you have to construct a new D-12

chart

> > in which you nominate the house 1 of the chart as the zodiacal

sign

> > associated with the Dwadasamsa occupied by the Lagna in D-1 and

use

> > that NEW chart's 4th and 9th houses? Why not simply consider

strengths

> > and weaknesses of the D-1 chart's 4th and 9th house lords'

Dwadasamsas?

> > All this confusion could be easily removed if you would show one

place

> > in classical texts where it says effectively (for

example) "construct

> > a Navamsha CHART by taking the zodiacal sign associated with the

> > Navamsha position of Lagna in Rasi chart and make that sign the

first

> > house in the Navamsha CHART"... or some such thing. Otherwise,

he (VP)

> > is correct (IMHO), it is not logically obvious from the 2

statements

> > you cite.

> >

> > Sundeep

> >

> > > Cancer is the 3rd sign from Taurus and hence the 3rd house.

Whether

> > we are talking about rasi chart or navamsa chart, they are made

up of

> > the same 12 signs and Cancer is the 3rd from Taurus in all. This

is a

> > very simple and basic fact for me. If Parasara taught us to see

> > marriage in navamsa, education in D-24 etc, I cannot imagine how

I can

> > see them without using houses. In fact, if I combine the two

teachings

> > of Parasara that D-12 shows parents and the 4th and 9th houses

show

> > mother and father, it implies to me that the 4th and 9th houses

in the

> > chart showing parents (D-12) show mother and father and hence

houses

> > in divisional charts are sanctioned.