Verse from Bhavarthha..(from verse to worse?)

[Guest guest]

Dear Shree Shreenaadh,

It is not clear what all you are trying to say.

 

....So stay away from the discussion...

 

Who's this 'you' here?

 

What was conveyed by Verna?

 

....arguments leads no where. And that is the truth, Verna ji is

pointing at...

 

 

When I said " argufy as fervidly as... " I meant to egg everyone on to

spirited analysis of the point of the chart, namely the planet bunch

in 12th hse. Nothing more, nothing less. Nothing else.

 

Something is sought to be shrouded in mystery.

 

As for Sanskrit, my understanding is we all can scrape through the

straightforward syntax of Shree Ramanujaachaarya, without being

required to have studied Sanskrit in a Sanskrit Toll. The 'Thathsam'

part of the vocab of my mother tongue, eg, gives me enough prime to

guess my way. That is my Sanskrit. Most others must be better

placed, I thought.

 

 

Now simplify the matter. And take the matter forward with generous

simplicity. Writing " ...But

> does, this encoded Sanskrit decipher anything to us?... " will not

absolve you of your responsibility. Remember my

> comments on this issue have no value now onwards, since the info

is already convayed to me. That will be immoderate of you.

 

With warmth, with love

 

RK

 

PS: It does not behove us to be minding things thrown up in

operational slipstream of discussion.

 

 

, " Sreenadh "

<sreesog wrote:

>

> Dear RK ji,

> The problem is that now I know something about this horoscope.

> Conveyed by Verna ji himself. So stay away from the discussion,

but

> provides a pointer. I think Vernaji won't be angry, when it can

> help in our understanding of astrology.

> * It was said earlier that the chart should be read from Mo.

> * 8th lord from Mo is debilitated and combusted. It is also the

7th

> lord. The Dasa of Ke, placed in 7th already running. Mo eclipsed

due

> to the presence of Ra. Lagna is weak. The Navamsa of Ke falls in

8th.

> The 12th lord from Mo is with the 8th lord.

> Does it convay anything? That is why the comments of Verna ji is

> very much valid.

>

> P.S.: It is all Sanskrit in the eyes of a common man, and

arguments

> leads no where. And that is the truth, Verna ji is pointing at.

But

> does, this encoded Sanskrit decipher anything to us? Remember my

> comments on this issue have no value now onwards, since the info

is

> already convayed to me.

>

> Love,

> Sreenadh

>

> , " vernalagnia "

> <vernalagnia@> wrote:

>

> > , " arkaydash "

> > <arkaydash@> wrote:

> > >

> > >

> > > I knew we might run into concordance prob, given that the copy

> now

> > > with me is from Ranjan Publications.

> >

> >

> > I only have an English translation by BV Raman.

> >

> >

> > > Well, the (first) verse (under Bhagya Yoga)goes:

> > >

> > > Yad-bhavakaarako lagnad-byaye thisthhathi chedyadi

> > > Thasya bhabasya sarvasya bhagyayoga udeerithah.

> > >

> > > The 7th from this verse is:

> > >

> > > Pitrukaaraka bhaanoscha bhaagyabhaabeswaropi baa

> > > Ubhau tau byayago-syaathaam pitrubhaagyamudeeritham.

> >

> >

> > Not much use at all because I'm Sanskrit-illiterate

> >

> >

> > > Now, Vernalagnia (why this iffy nettonym?)

> >

> > Titled after an affliction I can't rid myself of

> >

> >

> > > the operative word is 12th from lagna. It is bhaavakaaraka as

> > > different from bhaava lord.

> >

> > > Look at the other verse. It says kaaraka Bhanu and

> > > bhaagyabhaaveswara (9th lord) together in the 12th give rise

to

> > > pitrubhagya.

> > >

> > > So much for 12th as Ripha! Take heed and argufy as fervidly as

> you

> > > can.

> >

> >

> > Argument can only be when one knows something I just seek all

the

> > time (:

> >

> > Thanks a lot.

> >

> > +++

> >

>

[Guest guest]

Dear RK ji,

Sorry, it was a typos!

" So (I) stay away from the discussion " , I meant.

 

==>

What was conveyed by Verna?

<==

Guess Will be disclosed only later.

Love,

Sreenadh

 

, " arkaydash "

<arkaydash wrote:

>

> Dear Shree Shreenaadh,

> It is not clear what all you are trying to say.

>

> ...So stay away from the discussion...

>

> Who's this 'you' here?

>

> What was conveyed by Verna?

>

> ...arguments leads no where. And that is the truth, Verna ji is

> pointing at...

>

>

> When I said " argufy as fervidly as... " I meant to egg everyone on

to

> spirited analysis of the point of the chart, namely the planet

bunch

> in 12th hse. Nothing more, nothing less. Nothing else.

>

> Something is sought to be shrouded in mystery.

>

> As for Sanskrit, my understanding is we all can scrape through the

> straightforward syntax of Shree Ramanujaachaarya, without being

> required to have studied Sanskrit in a Sanskrit Toll.

The 'Thathsam'

> part of the vocab of my mother tongue, eg, gives me enough prime to

> guess my way. That is my Sanskrit. Most others must be better

> placed, I thought.

>

>

> Now simplify the matter. And take the matter forward with generous

> simplicity. Writing " ...But

> > does, this encoded Sanskrit decipher anything to us?... " will not

> absolve you of your responsibility. Remember my

> > comments on this issue have no value now onwards, since the info

> is already convayed to me. That will be immoderate of you.

>

> With warmth, with love

>

> RK

>

> PS: It does not behove us to be minding things thrown up in

> operational slipstream of discussion.

>

>

> , " Sreenadh "

> <sreesog@> wrote:

> >

> > Dear RK ji,

> > The problem is that now I know something about this horoscope.

> > Conveyed by Verna ji himself. So stay away from the discussion,

> but

> > provides a pointer. I think Vernaji won't be angry, when it

can

> > help in our understanding of astrology.

> > * It was said earlier that the chart should be read from Mo.

> > * 8th lord from Mo is debilitated and combusted. It is also the

> 7th

> > lord. The Dasa of Ke, placed in 7th already running. Mo eclipsed

> due

> > to the presence of Ra. Lagna is weak. The Navamsa of Ke falls in

> 8th.

> > The 12th lord from Mo is with the 8th lord.

> > Does it convay anything? That is why the comments of Verna ji is

> > very much valid.

> >

> > P.S.: It is all Sanskrit in the eyes of a common man, and

> arguments

> > leads no where. And that is the truth, Verna ji is pointing at.

> But

> > does, this encoded Sanskrit decipher anything to us? Remember my

> > comments on this issue have no value now onwards, since the info

> is

> > already convayed to me.

> >

> > Love,

> > Sreenadh

> >

> > , " vernalagnia "

> > <vernalagnia@> wrote:

> >

> > > , " arkaydash "

> > > <arkaydash@> wrote:

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > I knew we might run into concordance prob, given that the

copy

> > now

> > > > with me is from Ranjan Publications.

> > >

> > >

> > > I only have an English translation by BV Raman.

> > >

> > >

> > > > Well, the (first) verse (under Bhagya Yoga)goes:

> > > >

> > > > Yad-bhavakaarako lagnad-byaye thisthhathi chedyadi

> > > > Thasya bhabasya sarvasya bhagyayoga udeerithah.

> > > >

> > > > The 7th from this verse is:

> > > >

> > > > Pitrukaaraka bhaanoscha bhaagyabhaabeswaropi baa

> > > > Ubhau tau byayago-syaathaam pitrubhaagyamudeeritham.

> > >

> > >

> > > Not much use at all because I'm Sanskrit-illiterate

> > >

> > >

> > > > Now, Vernalagnia (why this iffy nettonym?)

> > >

> > > Titled after an affliction I can't rid myself of

> > >

> > >

> > > > the operative word is 12th from lagna. It is bhaavakaaraka as

> > > > different from bhaava lord.

> > >

> > > > Look at the other verse. It says kaaraka Bhanu and

> > > > bhaagyabhaaveswara (9th lord) together in the 12th give rise

> to

> > > > pitrubhagya.

> > > >

> > > > So much for 12th as Ripha! Take heed and argufy as fervidly

as

> > you

> > > > can.

> > >

> > >

> > > Argument can only be when one knows something I just seek

all

> the

> > > time (:

> > >

> > > Thanks a lot.

> > >

> > > +++

> > >

> >

>