To Sreenadhji-Texts and interpretations

January 9, 2008

Dear Srinadhji,

I am asking you something that I wanted to ask, but held back due to

some reasons. But now I feel like asking. You said - Go by the

originals; Translate yourself. N number of people will interpret

things in n number of ways. How do we know which is correct? Are we

to believe in our own interpretation or are we to try out each and

every n interpretations? How much consistent will be the results?

But this is not the question I wanted to ask. Let me come to it. You

narrated the below riddle from Finger prints of God:

" The questions asked to a neophyte before initiation:

Q. What did you see on your walk?

> > A. I saw two pots with red bamboo

> > Q. Do you know how many plants there were?

> > A. In one pot were 36 and in the other 72 plants, together 108.

> > Q . Did you take home some of them for your use?

> > A. Yes, I took home 108 plants.....

> > Q. How can you prove that?

> > A. I can prove it by a verse

> > Q. How does this verse run?

> > A. A red bamboo from Canton is rare in the world.

> > In the groves are 36 and 72

> > Who in the world knows the meaning of this?

> > When we have set to work we will know the secret

"

You gave the interpretation that 36 and 72 are the Navamsas from

Scorpio to Aries and the rest in other half.

What I wanted to ask is how did you know that the numbers 36 and 72

mentioned in the answers are the the navamsas?? You said so

authentically. Hence my doubt:). Does the book say that they indicate

the Navamsas? Or is it your own invention?(asking just because you

said you translate by yourself)Or is it somebody else' invention? Are

you so sure that it denotes Navamsas and NOTHING ELSE??

I would like to know how you derived this interpretation.Just too

curious to know the meaning.

Regards,

Jyothi

, " Sreenadh "

<sreesog wrote:

>

> Dear Ash,

> ==>

> How do we know for sure that what the sages said and what is

translated

> in English today are same. That canâ€™t be assumed.

>

> So, let me clarify, that what our ancient seers and sages taught was

> perfect, but what we have today cannot be said that that is exactly

what

> the sages taught.

> <==

> I don't depend on English translations, but only on ORIGINALS.

> Actually when one major thread is over I always used to upload the

> original quotes with commentary in the files section of the group.

Also

> know that it is NOT necessary that what the sages tell us MAYNOT BE

> PERFECT, but as the originators of this system, they knew well what

they

> are speaking about, which most of the modern day scholars seems to

miss.

> ==>

> So just quoting blindly using incomplete texts, by translators who

> might not have grasped the essence of what the real meaning of the

> shokes were meant to be,

> <==

> Blindness depends on the eye that see...... The second part is

> irrelevant because I don't depend on English translations, but

instead

> do the translation myself.

> ==>

> Back then the medium of teaching was verbal so someone at some point

> might have documented all this.

> <==

> You assume that what they pened down and what they taught might

be

> different; you assume that what they say and what they mean are

> different. Then it applies to all the written and spoken

communication

> we do as well - in daily life. If you go by this dictom, to

communicate

> correcty and perfectly you would have to stop speaking and

writing. I

> don't think till you become Buddha or Dakshinamoorti that woule be

> possible.

> ==>

> but the only way in my opinion to do justice to our ancient seers

is to

> make accurate prediction, by that I mean, 80-100% of charts must be

read

> accurately. That would automatically imply that what they taught

and

> what we have understood is perfect J

> That and only that is and can be the truth.

> <==

> Do it.... Sincerely I am just a kid trying to understand what

ever I

> can by approaching the available words of those sages with

reverence...

> The full blown flowers can try predicting 100% accurate and try

> convincing others...

> ==>

> I also understand that there has to be a start somewhere, and u can

use

> these so called remains that we have today called â€œclassic

> textsâ€ as the starting point, but it would be not proper to think

> that that is what

> <==

> But I trust that going by the available sage quotes is the ONLY

right

> path to understand this ancient system; Because they knew at least

what

> they are talking about, because they only created this system.

There

> words are better than the so called scholars who speak elaborately

speak

> about the system without referring to the classics, imagining

anything

> that comes to their mind. ya, that could be the path of many - but

> certainly not my path.

> ==>

> a) Exaclty what Maharishis

> <==

> There are many. To name a few - Skanda, Daksha, Vasishta,

Kausika

> (Viswamitra), Sounaka, Garga, Rishiputra, Vridha Garga, Yavaneswara,

> Lomasa, Parasara and so on.

> ==>

> b) We have all the texts and and in proper form

> <==

> We have some texts in full and many in fragments - and all of

them as

> a whole is sufficiant enough to give us a complete picture.

Remember

> one thing - " Know what is before you and then things hidden from you

> will get revealed to you " - tells us an enlightened soul. That is

the

> path of true learning and research....Know it as a fact.

> ==>

> c) We have proper translations of the same.

> <==

> DON'T depend on the translations, but depend on the ORIGINALS.

That is

> the RIGHT path. Translations - do it yourself.

> ==>

> So consider this as starting point and only starting point and the

end

> point will be or we can say that we have understood what the sages

have

> taught only when we are able to predict events 100% or rather

understand

> the essence of Jyotish 100%.

> <==

> Even if you are one of those sages, or even if you are god -

> predicting to 100% accuracy is an impossibility. (Meditate on -

Why?)

> They have clarified it amply in numerous instances, and this is a

one of

> the basic facts to be understood even by a bigginner who what to

learn

> this subject.

> ==>

> Has it occurred to anyone that maybe our Maharishis DID NOT want

> everyone to have full knowledge? Have full knowledge, would mean

having

> absolute power and absolute power will corrupt.

> Maybe all the knowledge was intentionally dispersed across the

world,

> with some knowledge with the say Mayans some with the Greek or

Yavans,

> some hidden in the Kabbalah, some in western astrology etc etc.

> <==

> There is NO POSSIBILITY of absolute knowledge - so the above

> statement losses its focus. But it is good to exercise your

imagination

> and try to correlate various fragmented knowledge found in various

> places - because everything may have a common source - similar

to 'some

> ancient lost civilization' as Graham Hancock puts it. (in 'Finger

prints

> of gods') :=)

> ==>

> Only the big guy upstairs knows what our ancient maharishis really

> wanted and the actual reason why the medium of instruction was only

> verbal, why is all this knowledge dispersed, and why the texts were

> destroyed etc etc.

> <==

> There is no big guy upstairs, since upstairs and downstairs are

one;

> east and west are one; looking at the big picture. If earth is a

globe,

> then which is east and which is west? which is north and which is

south?

> ya, for practical purpose imagining a guy upstairs would be good,

but he

> is the creation of your own mind; the truth is - " the universe is a

> single flux - the law, law giver, and obeyer of the laws all in

one; the

> creator, creation, and creativity all in one " . God is as imperfect

as we

> are; the universe is as imperfect as we are; and only an imperfect

and

> evolving system can be termed ALIVE. Anything perfect without

change is

> simply 'dead', and I don't think god is dead, divinity is dead - it

is

> as alive as we are, and we ourselves is the solid proof of such a

> divinity, such a creative force in action - the universe IS god.

> Note: But Ash all your words too are just philosophical, where is

your

> SOLID examples; practical application?

> Love and regards,

> Sreenadh

>

> , " Ash's Corner@ "

> <kas@> wrote:

>

> RE: Re: Quiz - Oh! Friends! Is it

true?!!!

>

> Dear Sreenadh,

>

> I donâ€™t think u understood what I was trying to say, Oh I

> donâ€™t doubt that what our ancient seers taught us is not correct.

>

> However my emphasis is on â€œWhat Words of the Sages?â€.

>

> How do we know for sure that what the sages said and what is

translated

> in English today are same. That canâ€™t be assumed.

>

> So, let me clarify, that what our ancient seers and sages taught was

> perfect, but what we have today cannot be said that that is exactly

what

> the sages taught.

>

> So just quoting blindly using incomplete texts, by translators who

> might not have grasped the essence of what the real meaning of the

> shokes were meant to be, inability to interpret it w.r.t point in

time,

> i.e. for example, somewhere its given that Ju in 4th house means

> elephants at door step, now that has to be translated in todays

worlds

> as maybe chauffer derive limousine or something like that, and even

one

> step before that, has the exact shloke been written done exactly as

the

> way our ancient seers have said?

>

> Back then the medium of teaching was verbal so someone at some point

> might have documented all this.

>

> So many layers of area where interpretation might go wrong.

>

> In reference to your comment about having patience, to that I have

to

> say that I have decided when I started learning Jyotish, so not to

> worry, itâ€™s a life long journey (or several lifetimes), but the

> only way in my opinion to do justice to our ancient seers is to make

> accurate prediction, by that I mean, 80-100% of charts must be read

> accurately. That would automatically imply that what they taught

and

> what we have understood is perfect J

>

> That and only that is and can be the truth.

>

> I also understand that there has to be a start somewhere, and u can

use

> these so called remains that we have today called â€œclassic

> textsâ€ as the starting point, but it would be not proper to think

> that that is what

>

> a) Exaclty what Maharishis

>

> b) We have all the texts and and in proper form

>

> c) We have proper translations of the same.

>

> So consider this as starting point and only starting point and the

end

> point will be or we can say that we have understood what the sages

have

> taught only when we are able to predict events 100% or rather

understand

> the essence of Jyotish 100%.

>

> Also one more thought and this is on a tangent, but since its come

to my

> mind, I will note it down. Has it occurred to anyone that maybe our

> Maharishis DID NOT want everyone to have full knowledge? Have full

> knowledge, would mean having absolute power and absolute power will

> corrupt.

>

> Maybe all the knowledge was intentionally dispersed across the

world,

> with some knowledge with the say Mayans some with the Greek or

Yavans,

> some hidden in the Kabbalah, some in western astrology etc etc.

>

> Only the big guy upstairs knows what our ancient maharishis really

> wanted and the actual reason why the medium of instruction was only

> verbal, why is all this knowledge dispersed, and why the texts were

> destroyed etc etc.

>

> Cheers !!!

>

> Ash

> > _____

> >

> On Behalf Of

Sreenadh

> > Wednesday January 9, 2008 6:55 AM

> >

> > Re: Quiz - Oh! Friends! Is it

> true?!!!

> >

> > Dear Ash ji,

> > Wait pls. You will right away see that their words are right -

> > and error is only in our understanding. Have patiants and don't be

> > in a hurry.

> > Love and regards,

> > Sreenadh

> >

> > ancient_indian_

> <%40>

> astrology , " Ash's Corner@ "

> > kas@ wrote:

> > >

> > > Dear Sreenadh,

> > >

> > > Yes, I agree with u, but my only grave concern and this question

> > that worries me is that Ã¢â‚¬Å " What did parasara actually say and

> teach

> > v/s what had been understood and written down and available in

texts

> > today?Ã¢â‚¬Â. If there is a difference and if everyone is

> following

> > that blindly and if such things do not pass the test of actually

> > practical solving of charts then that must mean that there is some

> > discrepancy there.

> > >

> > > Cheers !!!

> > >

> > > Ash -> <http://www.ashtro. <http://www.ashtro.ca> ca>

> http://www.ashtro. <http://www.ashtro.ca> ca

> > >

> > > _____

> > >

> > > ancient_indian_

> <%40>

> astrology

> > [ancient_indian_

> <%40>

> astrology ] On Behalf Of

> > Sreenadh

> > > Tuesday January 8, 2008 6:15 AM

> > > ancient_indian_

> <%40>

> astrology

> > > Re: Quiz - Oh! Friends! Is

it

> > true?!!!

> > >

> > > Dear Remesh ji,

> > > ==>

> > > > Both of you are correct your own way.

> > > > But the problem is, mixing two different system.

> > > <==

> > > You are absolutely right.

> > >

> > > This is what I tried to explain in my previous post - the

> > methodologies/systems differ - i.e. ancient Indian astrology (let

us

> > denote it as AIA) and KAS. But as far us the case (statement of

> > Parasara and Lomasa regarding 2nd lord 2nd house) is concerned the

> > systems/methodologies are irrelevant - what we are (and should be)

> > interested in is verifying whether the said result is true in

known

> > horoscopes or not.

> > > I also agree that - multiple factors should indicate the same to

> > state such a result with confidence. But the point I wanted to

> > emphasis (supporting the statement of the sages) was that

> ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬ " for

> > sure it shows a trend in that direction, i.e. in the direction of

> > fructification of multiple marriages; in the absence of other

> > supporting yogas/combinations, it is NOT necessary that just

> > because of this combination the said result should fructify; but

> > this shouldn't hold us back from giving proper waitage to the

> > statemnt of those sages.

> > > Love and regards,

> > > Sreenadh

> > >

> > > ancient_indian_

> <%40>

> astrology , ramesh mishra

> > <aarceemastro2002@> wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Dear Ash and Sreenadh,

> > > > Sorry to intrtvene here. Both of you are correct your own way.

> > > > But the problem is, mixing two different system.

> > > > In VA for second marriage second house is considered if I am

not

> > wrong.

> > > > 8th house is for break in first marriage and 7th from 8th is

> > second that is why 2nd house is for second marriage.

> > > > But chart must indicate multiple marriages.

> > > > For that we have to see the status of Ve. Its relationship

with

> > Ma. Sa and Ra.

> > > > The placemeent of Ve in dual signs.

> > > > Thanks and regards.

> > > > Ramesh Mishra

> > > >

> > > > " Ash's Corner@ " kas@ wrote:

> > > > Dear Sreenadh,

> > > >

> > > > I do not think we are on the same wavelength here. Ve exalts

in

> > Pisces the 12th house and in upachaya from 7th house. That is 11th

> > from Taurus. That is correct.

> > > >

> > > > But for a person to have extra marital relationship he must

have

> > some yogs indicating that, his personality and character must be

> > such. There must be problems or some such things indicating.

> > > >

> > > > Here 2nd house means karak for marriage is what I am seeing

> > period. If 2nd house is spoilt or Venus is spoilt then the results

> > of 7th house are spoilt, so it means there might be multiple

> > marriages or no marriage or some such thing means disturbed 7th

> > house.

> > > >

> > > > However for a person to break the marital bond and go outside

> > the boundaries and have extra marital relation must be indicated

by

> > the nature of the person, status of venus etc etc i.e. in short

more

> > yogs.

> > > >

> > > > 2nd house as per your mail, you wrote that it denotes own

> > home??? I am not clear with that either. House and fixed assets

are

> > 4th house. 2nd house is kutumb or family and wealth i.e. bonds,

> > stocks gold as per todays day and age and back in old days, also

> > knowledge i.e. Karak is Jupiter lord of 9th house in Kalpurush

chart

> > and your Guru and father too.

> > > >

> > > > How are u linking home to 2nd house or let me put it in other

> > way, I have not understood in what context have u linked Home to

2nd

> > house?

> > > >

> > > > 2nd house is 10th from 5th so primary upachaya. So in dasha of

> > 2nd or 10th lord that might trigger 5th house. Now that only need

> > not be romance, it can be a person might get his or her degree in

> > education or might gain in speculation, or might win a lottery.

> > > >

> > > > For a person to have romantic relation, he or she must have

some

> > particular nature or yogs like say Mars and Venus with Sa or say

Ma

> > and Ve in 1 house aspected by Saturn, so that can make a person

more

> > passionate (personality) and then in such case, if antra of 2nd

lord

> > runs or 10th lord then more chances of something that might happen

> > that he or she might meet someone in that antra. Again then, if Ju

> > aspects then it might not let it go out of hand etc etc etc like

> > other influence of planets modifying the overall nature of the

> > person.

> > > >

> > > > In all cases if 2nd lord is in 2nd house then all such persons

> > will have multiple marriages etc might not hold true in all

charts.

> > > >

> > > > Cheers !!!

> > > > Ash -> http://www.ashtro. <http://www.ashtro.ca> ca

> > > >

> > > > ancient_indian_

> <%40>

> astrology

> > [ancient_indian_

> <%40>

> astrology ] On Behalf Of

> > Sreenadh

> > > > Tuesday January 8, 2008 3:52 AM

> > > > ancient_indian_

> <%40>

> astrology

> > > > Re: Quiz - Oh! Friends! Is

> > it true?!!!

> > > >

> > > > Dear Ash,

> > > > The 2nd and 3rd marriage/'strong extra marital relation'

> > mentioned here is not mainly related to 5th (platonic love) or

12th

> > (bed pleasures); But rather related to the house indicating 2nd

> > marriages or relations within the relationships such as 2nd and

11th

> > houses.

> > > > Note that 2nd house indicates own home, homely relations; and

> > Venus is the lord of 2nd house and 7th house in NH; and also that

> > the same Venus gets exalted in 11th (a house signifying 2nd

> > marriage) from Taurus. As per NHT2, note that Jupiter is the

> > significator of 2nd house and that Jupiter in Taurus (2nd lord in

> > any house is equivalent to Jupiter in that house) means, 11th lord

> > from Taurus in Taurus. Also note that if we use NHT2, 2nd lord in

> > 2nd is equivalent to Mercury in Taurus for Taurus lagna - Mercury

is

> > debilitated in 11th and owns 2nd house from Tarus - indicting

> > relation with both 2nd and 11th house (both house signifying 2nd

> > wife/relation). Note that 11th indicates friendship turned into

> > relation.

> > > >

> > > > Thus in essence, the 2nd and 3rd relation mentioned here could

> > be -

> > > > * Actual marriages that took place (provided enough indication

> > of break of first marriage is present in horoscope)

> > > > * Friendship turned into strong extra marital relation.

> > > > * A relationship mainly caused by the environment/chance with

in

> > the family relatives/relations

> > > >

> > > > This is my opinion - any how I am of the opinion that " if 2nd

> > lord is in 2nd house - even though the native may have a clean

image

> > and he would be good at heart, for sure he will have extra marital

> > affairs; almost strong as a marriage " . It is not that the native

is

> > immoral, non-sincere, does not loves his wife or something like

> > that; it is just that for fulfillment (complimenting) he needs

some

> > extra relations - and have it, solid. If even by a slight chance

if

> > his marriage is affected, the very next day you will find him

> > settled in the next relation (married!) again enjoying life. May

be

> > some more examples and actual experiences may confirm or negate

this

> > derivation.

> > > > Love and regards,

> > > > Sreenadh

> > > >

> > > > ancient_indian_

> <%40>

> astrology , " Ash's Corner@ "

> > kas@ wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > > Dear Sreenadh,

> > > > >

> > > > > I read your reply and am not able to understand what u mean

by

> > 2 or 3 wives?

> > > > > Do u mean in the literal sense, i.e. w.r.t 7th house so

> > partner in property

> > > > > or do mean affairs i.e. 5th house matter platonic or 12th

> > house matters

> > > > > which involves pleasures?

> > > > >

> > > > > If a person say in India as 2 or 3 wives, then that might

be a

> > bigamous

> > > > > marriage which might be punishable by law. Or do u mean that

> > he or she

> > > > > might have a marriage then divorce and then marry 2nd time

and

> > divorce and

> > > > > marry 3rd time like that?

> > > > >

> > > > > Yes, one more thing about 2nd lord is that in antra of 2nd

> > lord a person

> > > > > worries, so at that time, a male might generate more Y

> > chromosomes so that

> > > > > might be a factor in having more female children.

> > > > >

> > > > > In KAS, if 3:6:10:11 points are in rising trend in Male

chart,

> > then mostly

> > > > > the 1st child is female. This is due to the logic that such

> > persons are

> > > > > very enterprising, just see the chart that Renu gave of CEO

> > where I said

> > > > > that native might be in business but he was CEO, I wrote a

> > mail I think in

> > > > > response to that as well, so if the person is taking on

large

> > ventures to

> > > > > establish business or if he is rising to much power and

> > conception happens

> > > > > then there are MORE chances of having a female child.

> > > > >

> > > > > Maybe that is why or some base of it might be there in this

> > 2nd lord in

> > > > > lagna logic as well?

> > > > >

> > > > > Cheers !!!

> > > > >

> > > > > Ash -> <http://www.ashtro. <http://www.ashtro.ca> ca>

> http://www.ashtro. <http://www.ashtro.ca> ca

> > > > >

> > > > > _____

> > > > >

> > > > > ancient_indian_

> <%40>

> astrology

> > > > > [ancient_indian_

> <%40>

> astrology ] On Behalf Of

> > Sreenadh

> > > > > Tuesday January 8, 2008 12:56 AM

> > > > > ancient_indian_

> <%40>

> astrology

> > > > > Re: Quiz - Oh! Friends!

Is

> > it true?!!!

> > > > >

> > > > > Dear Vinita ji,

> > > > > That was a good attempt. As for NHT2, assume Taurus as

> > lagna and that

> > > > > 2nd lord from Taurus (i.e. Mercury) is in Taurus. Note that

> > Venus gets

> > > > > debilitated in 5th Virgo, and also that mercury is a female

> > eunuch.

> > > > > But in face of the lawyers horoscope presented by Krishna ji

> > and the mail

> > > > > of Gopu ji, I should clarify the reading as per the Rishi

> > horas. We need to

> > > > > verify this reading, and I will stand by in support of the

> > sage quotes, and

> > > > > let us see what the reality and facts has to reveal.

> > > > >

> > > > > " If 2nd lord is in 2nd house, the native would be egotic. He

> > may have 2 or

> > > > > 3 wives (affairs or near marriage relations also will do),

but

> > won't have

> > > > > any children (especially son). He would be wealthy, will

> > indulge in

> > > > > righteous deeds. He will enjoy much worldly pleasures. He

will

> > have much

> > > > > income/earnings/gain/profit, but would be stingy. He will

> > always try to

> > > > > increase his earnings, and would be after accumulating more

> > and more money.

> > > > > He would be a very able individual (in work, earnings,

speech

> > etc). "

> > > > > The Dasa of the 2nd lord would be very prosperous. The

tight-

> > fistedness

> > > > > of the native comes from his intention to avoid wasteful

> > expenses; it is not

> > > > > that he will not spend enough money for useful things. For

> > useful and right

> > > > > things he will spend money without any stinginess. The

multiple

> > > > > relationships of the native spring not from his immoral

> > attitude, but rather

> > > > > from his sincerity. He is sincere to himself and to the

people

> > he comes in

> > > > > contact with. If he happens to make relationships with

women,

> > due to the too

> > > > > much sincerity, the chance for it to turn into a strong

> > relation (strong as

> > > > > marriage) is very big. This is what prompts the sage to

> > mention - multiple

> > > > > wives for the native.

> > > > > Let us to what extend these clear derivations actualized in

> > real

> > > > > horoscopes or not. I request the readers with the same

> > combination to share

> > > > > their experience; and their response/coment about the above

> > reading.

> > > > > Love and regards,

> > > > > Sreenadh

> > > > >

> > > > > ancient_indian_

> <%40>

> astrology , " vinita kumar "

> > > > > shankar_mamta@ wrote:

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Dear Shreenadh ji,

> > > > > >

> > > > > > ok here is my take on this ...not that it will necessarily

> > be close

> > > > > > to the right answer , but then u can once again

appreciate

> > the

> > > > > > effort

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Why should such a person have no son?

> > > > > >

> > > > > > 2nd lord in 2nd...in the natural zodiac this is Venus in

> > Taurus.

> > > > > > Venus is a female planet which gets strengthened in its

> > feminine

> > > > > > characteristics being in its own sign. Taurus is an even

> > sign also

> > > > > > equal to female??? dunno!

> > > > > >

> > > > > > i dont know if this application is correct, but assuming

2nd

> > house

> > > > > > to be first...the fifth house is Virgo, another female

sign.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Now for the 2nd question which is tougher....this person

may

> > have 2-

> > > > > > 3 wives....why and how?

> > > > > >

> > > > > > 7th house is the significator of marriage....first

marriage

> > or all

> > > > > > marriages?

> > > > > >

> > > > > > i dunno what is the significator of 2nd marriage, but i

have

> > heard

> > > > > > or read somewhere that 2nd to 7th, ie., 8th H is the

> > significator of

> > > > > > 2nd marriage, 9th the significator of 3rd marriage and so

> > on...Of

> > > > > > course, i don't know the basis of such pronouncements.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Going by the bhavat bhavam principle 8th from 8thH is 3rdH

> > just as

> > > > > > 3rdH is also 2nd from 2nd.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > 2nd from 2nd (Taurus) is Gemini, a dual sign and also a

sign

> > of

> > > > > > copulation....so maybe more than one marriage.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Venus from Taurus aspects Mars ruled Scorpio...Scorpio is

> > the hidden

> > > > > > 8th house also related to sex....but then i don't know how

> > this fits

> > > > > > in with formal 2nd or 3rd marriage. Of course, if such

> > marriages are

> > > > > > not in the open and hidden, there would be some connection

> > there.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > i am afraid this is the best i could do. i have not used

the

> > nh2

> > > > > > principle successfully because it is yet to sink in in

terms

> > of

> > > > > > application.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > warm regards,

> > > > > > vinita

> > > > > >

> > > > > > ancient_indian_

> <%40>

> astrology ,

> > Krishnamurthy

> > > > > > Seetharama krishna_1998@ wrote:

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Dear Sreenadh ji,

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Let me try -

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > If 2nd lord is in 2nd, he would influence the 8th. 8th

> > being 2nd

> > > > > > from 7th influences the longevity of the spouse. Hence,

> > might be

> > > > > > logical to say that the native would have more than one

wife.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Secondly, going by the logic of Kaalapursusha chart, it

> > would be

> > > > > > Venus in Taurus for Aries lagna. This also means the 7th

> > lord in the

> > > > > > second. The 7th lord being a maraka sitting in the house

of

> > family

> > > > > > is not good.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > But, I can't figure out why NO son.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > All the above is theory. Let me quote a practical case.

> > The

> > > > > > chart that I have already shared (that of a lawyer), he

has

> > 2nd lord

> > > > > > Mercury in the 2nd houuse Virgo. He has a Son - the only

> > child.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Regards,

> > > > > > > Krishna

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Sreenadh sreesog@ wrote:

> > > > > > > Dear All,

> > > > > > > Sage Parasara and Lomasa tells us that if 2nd lord in

2nd -

> > > > > > > * The native may have 2 or 3 wives.

> > > > > > > * He will have NO son!!

> > > > > > > We all know expect a very good reading speaking out very

> > good

> > > > > > results such as " good family, wealth, house, beautiful

face,

> > > > > > earnings " etc only for such a placement. What prompted

these

> > grate

> > > > > > sages to make a very strong derivation such as - " He will

> > have no

> > > > > > son " ?!! The quiz question is -

> > > > > > > * What is the logic behind?

> > > > > > > And the verification question is - Is that result

> > derivations

> > > > > > true in actual experience?

> > > > > > > Note: I hope that after the previous quiz on 2nd house

> > every

> > > > > > body would be much interested in applying the learned

> > principles

> > > > > > here. ;=)

> > > > > > > Love and regards,

> > > > > > > Sreenadh

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast

> > with

> > > > > > Search.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > > Now you can chat without downloading messenger. Click here to

> > know how.

> > > >

> > >

> >

>

January 10, 2008

Dear Lakshmi ji, Of course that is 'my interpretation' but certainly not an invention. Because you see - When "we have set to work we will know the secret" - because they are speaking about s0mething we are much familiar with and using a language and symbols we are so familiar with from ancient texts. The contextual understanding always helps us much in deciphering the secrets. Yes, any one could go on arguing that they might be pointing to something else as well - good for him - and if that too imparts us something valuable, I am open to them to accept that too. I am not a gate closed to the choices. But things are familiar - they are familiar and we know - that is all to it - because I have already set to work and receptive to the secrets. :)Love and regards,Sreenadh , "jyothi_b_lakshmi" <jyothi_b_lakshmi wrote:>> Dear Srinadhji,> > I am asking you something that I wanted to ask, but held back due to > some reasons. But now I feel like asking. You said - Go by the > originals; Translate yourself. N number of people will interpret > things in n number of ways. How do we know which is correct? Are we > to believe in our own interpretation or are we to try out each and > every n interpretations? How much consistent will be the results?> > But this is not the question I wanted to ask. Let me come to it. You > narrated the below riddle from Finger prints of God:> "The questions asked to a neophyte before initiation: > Q. What did you see on your walk?> > > A. I saw two pots with red bamboo> > > Q. Do you know how many plants there were?> > > A. In one pot were 36 and in the other 72 plants, together 108.> > > Q . Did you take home some of them for your use?> > > A. Yes, I took home 108 plants.....> > > Q. How can you prove that?> > > A. I can prove it by a verse> > > Q. How does this verse run?> > > A. A red bamboo from Canton is rare in the world.> > > In the groves are 36 and 72> > > Who in the world knows the meaning of this?> > > When we have set to work we will know the secret> "> You gave the interpretation that 36 and 72 are the Navamsas from > Scorpio to Aries and the rest in other half. > What I wanted to ask is how did you know that the numbers 36 and 72 > mentioned in the answers are the the navamsas?? You said so > authentically. Hence my doubt:). Does the book say that they indicate > the Navamsas? Or is it your own invention?(asking just because you > said you translate by yourself)Or is it somebody else' invention? Are > you so sure that it denotes Navamsas and NOTHING ELSE??> I would like to know how you derived this interpretation.Just too > curious to know the meaning. > > Regards,> Jyothi> > > , "Sreenadh" > sreesog@ wrote:> >> > > > Dear Ash,> > ==>> > How do we know for sure that what the sages said and what is > translated> > in English today are same. That canâ€™t be assumed.> > > > So, let me clarify, that what our ancient seers and sages taught was> > perfect, but what we have today cannot be said that that is exactly > what> > the sages taught.> > <==> > I don't depend on English translations, but only on ORIGINALS. > > Actually when one major thread is over I always used to upload the> > original quotes with commentary in the files section of the group. > Also> > know that it is NOT necessary that what the sages tell us MAYNOT BE> > PERFECT, but as the originators of this system, they knew well what > they> > are speaking about, which most of the modern day scholars seems to > miss.> > ==>> > So just quoting blindly using incomplete texts, by translators who> > might not have grasped the essence of what the real meaning of the> > shokes were meant to be,> > <==> > Blindness depends on the eye that see...... The second part is> > irrelevant because I don't depend on English translations, but > instead> > do the translation myself.> > ==>> > Back then the medium of teaching was verbal so someone at some point> > might have documented all this.> > <==> > You assume that what they pened down and what they taught might > be> > different; you assume that what they say and what they mean are> > different. Then it applies to all the written and spoken > communication> > we do as well - in daily life. If you go by this dictom, to > communicate> > correcty and perfectly you would have to stop speaking and > writing. I> > don't think till you become Buddha or Dakshinamoorti that woule be> > possible. > > ==>> > but the only way in my opinion to do justice to our ancient seers > is to> > make accurate prediction, by that I mean, 80-100% of charts must be > read> > accurately. That would automatically imply that what they taught > and> > what we have understood is perfect J> > That and only that is and can be the truth.> > <==> > Do it.... Sincerely I am just a kid trying to understand what > ever I> > can by approaching the available words of those sages with > reverence...> > The full blown flowers can try predicting 100% accurate and try> > convincing others...> > ==>> > I also understand that there has to be a start somewhere, and u can > use> > these so called remains that we have today called â€œclassic> > textsâ€ as the starting point, but it would be not proper to think> > that that is what> > <==> > But I trust that going by the available sage quotes is the ONLY > right> > path to understand this ancient system; Because they knew at least > what> > they are talking about, because they only created this system. > There> > words are better than the so called scholars who speak elaborately > speak> > about the system without referring to the classics, imagining > anything> > that comes to their mind. ya, that could be the path of many - but> > certainly not my path.> > ==>> > a) Exaclty what Maharishis> > <==> > There are many. To name a few - Skanda, Daksha, Vasishta, > Kausika> > (Viswamitra), Sounaka, Garga, Rishiputra, Vridha Garga, Yavaneswara,> > Lomasa, Parasara and so on.> > ==>> > b) We have all the texts and and in proper form> > <==> > We have some texts in full and many in fragments - and all of > them as> > a whole is sufficiant enough to give us a complete picture. > Remember> > one thing - "Know what is before you and then things hidden from you> > will get revealed to you" - tells us an enlightened soul. That is > the> > path of true learning and research....Know it as a fact.> > ==>> > c) We have proper translations of the same.> > <==> > DON'T depend on the translations, but depend on the ORIGINALS. > That is> > the RIGHT path. Translations - do it yourself.> > ==>> > So consider this as starting point and only starting point and the > end> > point will be or we can say that we have understood what the sages > have> > taught only when we are able to predict events 100% or rather > understand> > the essence of Jyotish 100%.> > <==> > Even if you are one of those sages, or even if you are god -> > predicting to 100% accuracy is an impossibility. (Meditate on - > Why?)> > They have clarified it amply in numerous instances, and this is a > one of> > the basic facts to be understood even by a bigginner who what to > learn> > this subject.> > ==>> > Has it occurred to anyone that maybe our Maharishis DID NOT want> > everyone to have full knowledge? Have full knowledge, would mean > having> > absolute power and absolute power will corrupt.> > Maybe all the knowledge was intentionally dispersed across the > world,> > with some knowledge with the say Mayans some with the Greek or > Yavans,> > some hidden in the Kabbalah, some in western astrology etc etc.> > <==> > There is NO POSSIBILITY of absolute knowledge - so the above> > statement losses its focus. But it is good to exercise your > imagination> > and try to correlate various fragmented knowledge found in various> > places - because everything may have a common source - similar > to 'some> > ancient lost civilization' as Graham Hancock puts it. (in 'Finger > prints> > of gods') :=)> > ==>> > Only the big guy upstairs knows what our ancient maharishis really> > wanted and the actual reason why the medium of instruction was only> > verbal, why is all this knowledge dispersed, and why the texts were> > destroyed etc etc.> > <==> > There is no big guy upstairs, since upstairs and downstairs are > one;> > east and west are one; looking at the big picture. If earth is a > globe,> > then which is east and which is west? which is north and which is > south?> > ya, for practical purpose imagining a guy upstairs would be good, > but he> > is the creation of your own mind; the truth is - "the universe is a> > single flux - the law, law giver, and obeyer of the laws all in > one; the> > creator, creation, and creativity all in one". God is as imperfect > as we> > are; the universe is as imperfect as we are; and only an imperfect > and> > evolving system can be termed ALIVE. Anything perfect without > change is> > simply 'dead', and I don't think god is dead, divinity is dead - it > is> > as alive as we are, and we ourselves is the solid proof of such a> > divinity, such a creative force in action - the universe IS god.> > Note: But Ash all your words too are just philosophical, where is > your> > SOLID examples; practical application? > > Love and regards,> > Sreenadh> > > > > > , "Ash's Corner@"> > <kas@> wrote:> > > > RE: Re: Quiz - Oh! Friends! Is it > true?!!!> > > > Dear Sreenadh,> > > > I donâ€™t think u understood what I was trying to say, Oh I> > donâ€™t doubt that what our ancient seers taught us is not correct.> > > > However my emphasis is on â€œWhat Words of the Sages?â€.> > > > How do we know for sure that what the sages said and what is > translated> > in English today are same. That canâ€™t be assumed.> > > > So, let me clarify, that what our ancient seers and sages taught was> > perfect, but what we have today cannot be said that that is exactly > what> > the sages taught.> > > > So just quoting blindly using incomplete texts, by translators who> > might not have grasped the essence of what the real meaning of the> > shokes were meant to be, inability to interpret it w.r.t point in > time,> > i.e. for example, somewhere its given that Ju in 4th house means> > elephants at door step, now that has to be translated in todays > worlds> > as maybe chauffer derive limousine or something like that, and even > one> > step before that, has the exact shloke been written done exactly as > the> > way our ancient seers have said?> > > > Back then the medium of teaching was verbal so someone at some point> > might have documented all this.> > > > So many layers of area where interpretation might go wrong.> > > > In reference to your comment about having patience, to that I have > to> > say that I have decided when I started learning Jyotish, so not to> > worry, itâ€™s a life long journey (or several lifetimes), but the> > only way in my opinion to do justice to our ancient seers is to make> > accurate prediction, by that I mean, 80-100% of charts must be read> > accurately. That would automatically imply that what they taught > and> > what we have understood is perfect J> > > > That and only that is and can be the truth.> > > > I also understand that there has to be a start somewhere, and u can > use> > these so called remains that we have today called â€œclassic> > textsâ€ as the starting point, but it would be not proper to think> > that that is what> > > > a) Exaclty what Maharishis> > > > b) We have all the texts and and in proper form> > > > c) We have proper translations of the same.> > > > So consider this as starting point and only starting point and the > end> > point will be or we can say that we have understood what the sages > have> > taught only when we are able to predict events 100% or rather > understand> > the essence of Jyotish 100%.> > > > Also one more thought and this is on a tangent, but since its come > to my> > mind, I will note it down. Has it occurred to anyone that maybe our> > Maharishis DID NOT want everyone to have full knowledge? Have full> > knowledge, would mean having absolute power and absolute power will> > corrupt.> > > > Maybe all the knowledge was intentionally dispersed across the > world,> > with some knowledge with the say Mayans some with the Greek or > Yavans,> > some hidden in the Kabbalah, some in western astrology etc etc.> > > > Only the big guy upstairs knows what our ancient maharishis really> > wanted and the actual reason why the medium of instruction was only> > verbal, why is all this knowledge dispersed, and why the texts were> > destroyed etc etc.> > > > Cheers !!!> > > > Ash> > > _____> > >> > > > > On Behalf Of > Sreenadh> > > Wednesday January 9, 2008 6:55 AM> > > > > > Re: Quiz - Oh! Friends! Is it> > true?!!!> > >> > >> > >> > > Dear Ash ji,> > > Wait pls. You will right away see that their words are right -> > > and error is only in our understanding. Have patiants and don't be> > > in a hurry. > > > Love and regards,> > > Sreenadh> > >> > > ancient_indian_> > <%40>> > astrology , "Ash's Corner@"> > > kas@ wrote:> > > >> > > > Dear Sreenadh,> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > Yes, I agree with u, but my only grave concern and this question> > > that worries me is that Ã¢â‚¬Å¦amp;quot;What did parasara actually say and> > teach> > > v/s what had been understood and written down and available in > texts> > > today?Ã¢â‚¬Â. If there is a difference and if everyone is> > following> > > that blindly and if such things do not pass the test of actually> > > practical solving of charts then that must mean that there is some> > > discrepancy there.> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > Cheers !!!> > > >> > > > Ash -> <http://www.ashtro. <http://www.ashtro.ca> ca>> > http://www.ashtro. <http://www.ashtro.ca> ca> > > >> > > > _____> > > >> > > > ancient_indian_> > <%40>> > astrology > > > [ancient_indian_> > <%40>> > astrology ] On Behalf Of> > > Sreenadh> > > > Tuesday January 8, 2008 6:15 AM> > > > ancient_indian_> > <%40>> > astrology > > > > Re: Quiz - Oh! Friends! Is > it> > > true?!!!> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > Dear Remesh ji,> > > > ==>> > > > > Both of you are correct your own way.> > > > > But the problem is, mixing two different system.> > > > <==> > > > You are absolutely right.> > > >> > > > This is what I tried to explain in my previous post - the> > > methodologies/systems differ - i.e. ancient Indian astrology (let > us> > > denote it as AIA) and KAS. But as far us the case (statement of> > > Parasara and Lomasa regarding 2nd lord 2nd house) is concerned the> > > systems/methodologies are irrelevant - what we are (and should be)> > > interested in is verifying whether the said result is true in > known> > > horoscopes or not.> > > > I also agree that - multiple factors should indicate the same to> > > state such a result with confidence. But the point I wanted to> > > emphasis (supporting the statement of the sages) was that> > ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬" for> > > sure it shows a trend in that direction, i.e. in the direction of> > > fructification of multiple marriages; in the absence of other> > > supporting yogas/combinations, it is NOT necessary that just> > > because of this combination the said result should fructify; but> > > this shouldn't hold us back from giving proper waitage to the> > > statemnt of those sages.> > > > Love and regards,> > > > Sreenadh> > > >> > > > ancient_indian_> > <%40>> > astrology , ramesh mishra> > > <aarceemastro2002@> wrote:> > > > >> > > > > Dear Ash and Sreenadh,> > > > > Sorry to intrtvene here. Both of you are correct your own way.> > > > > But the problem is, mixing two different system.> > > > > In VA for second marriage second house is considered if I am > not> > > wrong.> > > > > 8th house is for break in first marriage and 7th from 8th is> > > second that is why 2nd house is for second marriage.> > > > > But chart must indicate multiple marriages.> > > > > For that we have to see the status of Ve. Its relationship > with> > > Ma. Sa and Ra.> > > > > The placemeent of Ve in dual signs.> > > > > Thanks and regards.> > > > > Ramesh Mishra> > > > >> > > > > "Ash's Corner@" kas@ wrote:> > > > > Dear Sreenadh,> > > > >> > > > > I do not think we are on the same wavelength here. Ve exalts > in> > > Pisces the 12th house and in upachaya from 7th house. That is 11th> > > from Taurus. That is correct.> > > > >> > > > > But for a person to have extra marital relationship he must > have> > > some yogs indicating that, his personality and character must be> > > such. There must be problems or some such things indicating.> > > > >> > > > > Here 2nd house means karak for marriage is what I am seeing> > > period. If 2nd house is spoilt or Venus is spoilt then the results> > > of 7th house are spoilt, so it means there might be multiple> > > marriages or no marriage or some such thing means disturbed 7th> > > house.> > > > >> > > > > However for a person to break the marital bond and go outside> > > the boundaries and have extra marital relation must be indicated > by> > > the nature of the person, status of venus etc etc i.e. in short > more> > > yogs.> > > > >> > > > > 2nd house as per your mail, you wrote that it denotes own> > > home??? I am not clear with that either. House and fixed assets > are> > > 4th house. 2nd house is kutumb or family and wealth i.e. bonds,> > > stocks gold as per todays day and age and back in old days, also> > > knowledge i.e. Karak is Jupiter lord of 9th house in Kalpurush > chart> > > and your Guru and father too.> > > > >> > > > > How are u linking home to 2nd house or let me put it in other> > > way, I have not understood in what context have u linked Home to > 2nd> > > house?> > > > >> > > > >> > > > > 2nd house is 10th from 5th so primary upachaya. So in dasha of> > > 2nd or 10th lord that might trigger 5th house. Now that only need> > > not be romance, it can be a person might get his or her degree in> > > education or might gain in speculation, or might win a lottery.> > > > >> > > > > For a person to have romantic relation, he or she must have > some> > > particular nature or yogs like say Mars and Venus with Sa or say > Ma> > > and Ve in 1 house aspected by Saturn, so that can make a person > more> > > passionate (personality) and then in such case, if antra of 2nd > lord> > > runs or 10th lord then more chances of something that might happen> > > that he or she might meet someone in that antra. Again then, if Ju> > > aspects then it might not let it go out of hand etc etc etc like> > > other influence of planets modifying the overall nature of the> > > person.> > > > >> > > > > In all cases if 2nd lord is in 2nd house then all such persons> > > will have multiple marriages etc might not hold true in all > charts.> > > > >> > > > >> > > > > Cheers !!!> > > > > Ash -> http://www.ashtro. <http://www.ashtro.ca> ca> > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > ancient_indian_> > <%40>> > astrology > > > [ancient_indian_> > <%40>> > astrology ] On Behalf Of> > > Sreenadh> > > > > Tuesday January 8, 2008 3:52 AM> > > > > ancient_indian_> > <%40>> > astrology > > > > > Re: Quiz - Oh! Friends! Is> > > it true?!!!> > > > >> > > > >> > > > > Dear Ash,> > > > > The 2nd and 3rd marriage/'strong extra marital relation'> > > mentioned here is not mainly related to 5th (platonic love) or > 12th> > > (bed pleasures); But rather related to the house indicating 2nd> > > marriages or relations within the relationships such as 2nd and > 11th> > > houses.> > > > > Note that 2nd house indicates own home, homely relations; and> > > Venus is the lord of 2nd house and 7th house in NH; and also that> > > the same Venus gets exalted in 11th (a house signifying 2nd> > > marriage) from Taurus. As per NHT2, note that Jupiter is the> > > significator of 2nd house and that Jupiter in Taurus (2nd lord in> > > any house is equivalent to Jupiter in that house) means, 11th lord> > > from Taurus in Taurus. Also note that if we use NHT2, 2nd lord in> > > 2nd is equivalent to Mercury in Taurus for Taurus lagna - Mercury > is> > > debilitated in 11th and owns 2nd house from Tarus - indicting> > > relation with both 2nd and 11th house (both house signifying 2nd> > > wife/relation). Note that 11th indicates friendship turned into> > > relation.> > > > >> > > > > Thus in essence, the 2nd and 3rd relation mentioned here could> > > be -> > > > > * Actual marriages that took place (provided enough indication> > > of break of first marriage is present in horoscope)> > > > > * Friendship turned into strong extra marital relation.> > > > > * A relationship mainly caused by the environment/chance with > in> > > the family relatives/relations> > > > >> > > > > This is my opinion - any how I am of the opinion that "if 2nd> > > lord is in 2nd house - even though the native may have a clean > image> > > and he would be good at heart, for sure he will have extra marital> > > affairs; almost strong as a marriage". It is not that the native > is> > > immoral, non-sincere, does not loves his wife or something like> > > that; it is just that for fulfillment (complimenting) he needs > some> > > extra relations - and have it, solid. If even by a slight chance > if> > > his marriage is affected, the very next day you will find him> > > settled in the next relation (married!) again enjoying life. May > be> > > some more examples and actual experiences may confirm or negate > this> > > derivation.> > > > > Love and regards,> > > > > Sreenadh> > > > >> > > > > ancient_indian_> > <%40>> > astrology , "Ash's Corner@"> > > kas@ wrote:> > > > > >> > > > > > Dear Sreenadh,> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > I read your reply and am not able to understand what u mean > by> > > 2 or 3 wives?> > > > > > Do u mean in the literal sense, i.e. w.r.t 7th house so> > > partner in property> > > > > > or do mean affairs i.e. 5th house matter platonic or 12th> > > house matters> > > > > > which involves pleasures?> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > If a person say in India as 2 or 3 wives, then that might > be a> > > bigamous> > > > > > marriage which might be punishable by law. Or do u mean that> > > he or she> > > > > > might have a marriage then divorce and then marry 2nd time > and> > > divorce and> > > > > > marry 3rd time like that?> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > Yes, one more thing about 2nd lord is that in antra of 2nd> > > lord a person> > > > > > worries, so at that time, a male might generate more Y> > > chromosomes so that> > > > > > might be a factor in having more female children.> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > In KAS, if 3:6:10:11 points are in rising trend in Male > chart,> > > then mostly> > > > > > the 1st child is female. This is due to the logic that such> > > persons are> > > > > > very enterprising, just see the chart that Renu gave of CEO> > > where I said> > > > > > that native might be in business but he was CEO, I wrote a> > > mail I think in> > > > > > response to that as well, so if the person is taking on > large> > > ventures to> > > > > > establish business or if he is rising to much power and> > > conception happens> > > > > > then there are MORE chances of having a female child.> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > Maybe that is why or some base of it might be there in this> > > 2nd lord in> > > > > > lagna logic as well?> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > Cheers !!!> > > > > >> > > > > > Ash -> <http://www.ashtro. <http://www.ashtro.ca> ca>> > http://www.ashtro. <http://www.ashtro.ca> ca> > > > > >> > > > > > _____> > > > > >> > > > > > ancient_indian_> > <%40>> > astrology > > > > > > [ancient_indian_> > <%40>> > astrology ] On Behalf Of> > > Sreenadh> > > > > > Tuesday January 8, 2008 12:56 AM> > > > > > ancient_indian_> > <%40>> > astrology > > > > > > Re: Quiz - Oh! Friends! > Is> > > it true?!!!> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > Dear Vinita ji,> > > > > > That was a good attempt. As for NHT2, assume Taurus as> > > lagna and that> > > > > > 2nd lord from Taurus (i.e. Mercury) is in Taurus. Note that> > > Venus gets> > > > > > debilitated in 5th Virgo, and also that mercury is a female> > > eunuch.> > > > > > But in face of the lawyers horoscope presented by Krishna ji> > > and the mail> > > > > > of Gopu ji, I should clarify the reading as per the Rishi> > > horas. We need to> > > > > > verify this reading, and I will stand by in support of the> > > sage quotes, and> > > > > > let us see what the reality and facts has to reveal. > > > > > >> > > > > > "If 2nd lord is in 2nd house, the native would be egotic. He> > > may have 2 or> > > > > > 3 wives (affairs or near marriage relations also will do), > but> > > won't have> > > > > > any children (especially son). He would be wealthy, will> > > indulge in> > > > > > righteous deeds. He will enjoy much worldly pleasures. He > will> > > have much> > > > > > income/earnings/gain/profit, but would be stingy. He will> > > always try to> > > > > > increase his earnings, and would be after accumulating more> > > and more money.> > > > > > He would be a very able individual (in work, earnings, > speech> > > etc)."> > > > > > The Dasa of the 2nd lord would be very prosperous. The > tight-> > > fistedness> > > > > > of the native comes from his intention to avoid wasteful> > > expenses; it is not> > > > > > that he will not spend enough money for useful things. For> > > useful and right> > > > > > things he will spend money without any stinginess. The > multiple> > > > > > relationships of the native spring not from his immoral> > > attitude, but rather> > > > > > from his sincerity. He is sincere to himself and to the > people> > > he comes in> > > > > > contact with. If he happens to make relationships with > women,> > > due to the too> > > > > > much sincerity, the chance for it to turn into a strong> > > relation (strong as> > > > > > marriage) is very big. This is what prompts the sage to> > > mention - multiple> > > > > > wives for the native.> > > > > > Let us to what extend these clear derivations actualized in> > > real> > > > > > horoscopes or not. I request the readers with the same> > > combination to share> > > > > > their experience; and their response/coment about the above> > > reading.> > > > > > Love and regards,> > > > > > Sreenadh> > > > > >> > > > > > ancient_indian_> > <%40>> > astrology , "vinita kumar"> > > > > > shankar_mamta@ wrote:> > > > > > >> > > > > > > Dear Shreenadh ji,> > > > > > >> > > > > > > ok here is my take on this ...not that it will necessarily> > > be close> > > > > > > to the right answer , but then u can once again > appreciate> > > the> > > > > > > effort > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Why should such a person have no son?> > > > > > >> > > > > > > 2nd lord in 2nd...in the natural zodiac this is Venus in> > > Taurus.> > > > > > > Venus is a female planet which gets strengthened in its> > > feminine> > > > > > > characteristics being in its own sign. Taurus is an even> > > sign also> > > > > > > equal to female??? dunno!> > > > > > >> > > > > > > i dont know if this application is correct, but assuming > 2nd> > > house> > > > > > > to be first...the fifth house is Virgo, another female > sign.> > > > > > >> > > > > > > Now for the 2nd question which is tougher....this person > may> > > have 2-> > > > > > > 3 wives....why and how?> > > > > > >> > > > > > > 7th house is the significator of marriage....first > marriage> > > or all> > > > > > > marriages?> > > > > > >> > > > > > > i dunno what is the significator of 2nd marriage, but i > have> > > heard> > > > > > > or read somewhere that 2nd to 7th, ie., 8th H is the> > > significator of> > > > > > > 2nd marriage, 9th the significator of 3rd marriage and so> > > on...Of> > > > > > > course, i don't know the basis of such pronouncements.> > > > > > >> > > > > > > Going by the bhavat bhavam principle 8th from 8thH is 3rdH> > > just as> > > > > > > 3rdH is also 2nd from 2nd.> > > > > > >> > > > > > > 2nd from 2nd (Taurus) is Gemini, a dual sign and also a > sign> > > of> > > > > > > copulation....so maybe more than one marriage.> > > > > > >> > > > > > > Venus from Taurus aspects Mars ruled Scorpio...Scorpio is> > > the hidden> > > > > > > 8th house also related to sex....but then i don't know how> > > this fits> > > > > > > in with formal 2nd or 3rd marriage. Of course, if such> > > marriages are> > > > > > > not in the open and hidden, there would be some connection> > > there.> > > > > > >> > > > > > > i am afraid this is the best i could do. i have not used > the> > > nh2> > > > > > > principle successfully because it is yet to sink in in > terms> > > of> > > > > > > application.> > > > > > >> > > > > > > warm regards,> > > > > > > vinita> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > > ancient_indian_> > <%40>> > astrology ,> > > Krishnamurthy> > > > > > > Seetharama krishna_1998@ wrote:> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > Dear Sreenadh ji,> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > Let me try -> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > If 2nd lord is in 2nd, he would influence the 8th. 8th> > > being 2nd> > > > > > > from 7th influences the longevity of the spouse. Hence,> > > might be> > > > > > > logical to say that the native would have more than one > wife.> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > Secondly, going by the logic of Kaalapursusha chart, it> > > would be> > > > > > > Venus in Taurus for Aries lagna. This also means the 7th> > > lord in the> > > > > > > second. The 7th lord being a maraka sitting in the house > of> > > family> > > > > > > is not good.> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > But, I can't figure out why NO son.> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > All the above is theory. Let me quote a practical case.> > > The> > > > > > > chart that I have already shared (that of a lawyer), he > has> > > 2nd lord> > > > > > > Mercury in the 2nd houuse Virgo. He has a Son - the only> > > child.> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > Regards,> > > > > > > > Krishna> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > Sreenadh sreesog@ wrote:> > > > > > > > Dear All,> > > > > > > > Sage Parasara and Lomasa tells us that if 2nd lord in > 2nd -> > > > > > > > * The native may have 2 or 3 wives.> > > > > > > > * He will have NO son!!> > > > > > > > We all know expect a very good reading speaking out very> > > good> > > > > > > results such as "good family, wealth, house, beautiful > face,> > > > > > > earnings" etc only for such a placement. What prompted > these> > > grate> > > > > > > sages to make a very strong derivation such as - "He will> > > have no> > > > > > > son"?!! The quiz question is -> > > > > > > > * What is the logic behind?> > > > > > > > And the verification question is - Is that result> > > derivations> > > > > > > true in actual experience?> > > > > > > > Note: I hope that after the previous quiz on 2nd house> > > every> > > > > > > body would be much interested in applying the learned> > > principles> > > > > > > here. ;=)> > > > > > > > Love and regards,> > > > > > > > Sreenadh> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast> > > with> > > > > > > Search.> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > Now you can chat without downloading messenger. Click here to> > > know how.> > > > >> > > >> > >> >>

January 11, 2008

Dear Jyothi and Shreenadh,

The TRUTH is probably out there...but it is a personal experience.

The Rishis comprehended this truth, but the moment this was written

down it probably became distorted and had to be only a " reflection "

of truth...People who read abt. truth entered into a 2nd degree of

distortion...and those who interpreted and wrote once again abt

the " reflection " went further and further away from the real thing.

Of course there are reflections of truth in various writings which

we feel attracted to, which we want to collect, which we want to

horde in our minds, which we want to interpret or write further

about.

But then these may be nuggets scattered here and there, small

fragments of the real TRUTH, sometimes tarnished, sometimes twisted,

sometimes coloured through various filters of the mind they have

been through.

There is a book called the gospel of ramakrishna. it was originally

written in bengali recording first hand conversations between shri

ramakrishna and his disciples. there is a beautiful passage in it in

the words of shri ramakrishna himself:

" The rishis of old attained knowledge of brahman. One cannot have

this so long as there is the slightest trace of worldliness. How

hard the rishis laboured! Early in the morning they would go away

from the hermitage and would spend the whole day in solitude,

meditating on Brahman. At night they would return to the hermitage

and eat a little fruit or toots. They kept their minds aloof from

the objects of sight, hearing, touch and other things of a worldly

nature. Only thus did they realise Brahman as thier own inner

consciousness " .

" The bee buzzes so long as it is not sitting on a flower. It becomes

silent when it begins to sip the honey. But sometimes intoxicated

with the honey, it buzzes again "

" An empty pitcher makes a gurgling sound when it is dipped in water.

When it fills up it becomes silent. But when the water is poured

from it into another pitcher, then you will hear the sound again " .

Now don't u think that is beautiful!

it also reminds me of the forum which is full of buzzing and

gurgling and also sometimes full of sound bites.:)

love,

vinita

, " jyothi_b_lakshmi "

<jyothi_b_lakshmi wrote:

>

> Dear Srinadhji,

>

> I am asking you something that I wanted to ask, but held back due

to

> some reasons. But now I feel like asking. You said - Go by the

> originals; Translate yourself. N number of people will interpret

> things in n number of ways. How do we know which is correct? Are

we

> to believe in our own interpretation or are we to try out each and

> every n interpretations? How much consistent will be the results?

>

> But this is not the question I wanted to ask. Let me come to it.

You

> narrated the below riddle from Finger prints of God:

> " The questions asked to a neophyte before initiation:

> Q. What did you see on your walk?

> > > A. I saw two pots with red bamboo

> > > Q. Do you know how many plants there were?

> > > A. In one pot were 36 and in the other 72 plants, together 108.

> > > Q . Did you take home some of them for your use?

> > > A. Yes, I took home 108 plants.....

> > > Q. How can you prove that?

> > > A. I can prove it by a verse

> > > Q. How does this verse run?

> > > A. A red bamboo from Canton is rare in the world.

> > > In the groves are 36 and 72

> > > Who in the world knows the meaning of this?

> > > When we have set to work we will know the secret

> "

> You gave the interpretation that 36 and 72 are the Navamsas from

> Scorpio to Aries and the rest in other half.

> What I wanted to ask is how did you know that the numbers 36 and

72

> mentioned in the answers are the the navamsas?? You said so

> authentically. Hence my doubt:). Does the book say that they

indicate

> the Navamsas? Or is it your own invention?(asking just because you

> said you translate by yourself)Or is it somebody else' invention?

Are

> you so sure that it denotes Navamsas and NOTHING ELSE??

> I would like to know how you derived this interpretation.Just too

> curious to know the meaning.

>

> Regards,

> Jyothi

>

> , " Sreenadh "

> <sreesog@> wrote:

> >

> > Dear Ash,

> > ==>

> > How do we know for sure that what the sages said and what is

> translated

> > in English today are same. That canâ€™t be assumed.

> >

> > So, let me clarify, that what our ancient seers and sages taught

was

> > perfect, but what we have today cannot be said that that is

exactly

> what

> > the sages taught.

> > <==

> > I don't depend on English translations, but only on

ORIGINALS.

> > Actually when one major thread is over I always used to upload

the

> > original quotes with commentary in the files section of the

group.

> Also

> > know that it is NOT necessary that what the sages tell us MAYNOT

BE

> > PERFECT, but as the originators of this system, they knew well

what

> they

> > are speaking about, which most of the modern day scholars seems

to

> miss.

> > ==>

> > So just quoting blindly using incomplete texts, by translators

who

> > might not have grasped the essence of what the real meaning of

the

> > shokes were meant to be,

> > <==

> > Blindness depends on the eye that see...... The second part is

> > irrelevant because I don't depend on English translations, but

> instead

> > do the translation myself.

> > ==>

> > Back then the medium of teaching was verbal so someone at some

point

> > might have documented all this.

> > <==

> > You assume that what they pened down and what they taught

might

> be

> > different; you assume that what they say and what they mean are

> > different. Then it applies to all the written and spoken

> communication

> > we do as well - in daily life. If you go by this dictom, to

> communicate

> > correcty and perfectly you would have to stop speaking and

> writing. I

> > don't think till you become Buddha or Dakshinamoorti that woule

be

> > possible.

> > ==>

> > but the only way in my opinion to do justice to our ancient

seers

> is to

> > make accurate prediction, by that I mean, 80-100% of charts must

be

> read

> > accurately. That would automatically imply that what they

taught

> and

> > what we have understood is perfect J

> > That and only that is and can be the truth.

> > <==

> > Do it.... Sincerely I am just a kid trying to understand what

> ever I

> > can by approaching the available words of those sages with

> reverence...

> > The full blown flowers can try predicting 100% accurate and try

> > convincing others...

> > ==>

> > I also understand that there has to be a start somewhere, and u

can

> use

> > these so called remains that we have today called â€œclassic

> > textsâ€ as the starting point, but it would be not proper to

think

> > that that is what

> > <==

> > But I trust that going by the available sage quotes is the

ONLY

> right

> > path to understand this ancient system; Because they knew at

least

> what

> > they are talking about, because they only created this system.

> There

> > words are better than the so called scholars who speak

elaborately

> speak

> > about the system without referring to the classics, imagining

> anything

> > that comes to their mind. ya, that could be the path of many -

but

> > certainly not my path.

> > ==>

> > a) Exaclty what Maharishis

> > <==

> > There are many. To name a few - Skanda, Daksha, Vasishta,

> Kausika

> > (Viswamitra), Sounaka, Garga, Rishiputra, Vridha Garga,

Yavaneswara,

> > Lomasa, Parasara and so on.

> > ==>

> > b) We have all the texts and and in proper form

> > <==

> > We have some texts in full and many in fragments - and all of

> them as

> > a whole is sufficiant enough to give us a complete picture.

> Remember

> > one thing - " Know what is before you and then things hidden from

you

> > will get revealed to you " - tells us an enlightened soul. That

is

> the

> > path of true learning and research....Know it as a fact.

> > ==>

> > c) We have proper translations of the same.

> > <==

> > DON'T depend on the translations, but depend on the

ORIGINALS.

> That is

> > the RIGHT path. Translations - do it yourself.

> > ==>

> > So consider this as starting point and only starting point and

the

> end

> > point will be or we can say that we have understood what the

sages

> have

> > taught only when we are able to predict events 100% or rather

> understand

> > the essence of Jyotish 100%.

> > <==

> > Even if you are one of those sages, or even if you are god -

> > predicting to 100% accuracy is an impossibility. (Meditate on -

> Why?)

> > They have clarified it amply in numerous instances, and this is

a

> one of

> > the basic facts to be understood even by a bigginner who what to

> learn

> > this subject.

> > ==>

> > Has it occurred to anyone that maybe our Maharishis DID NOT want

> > everyone to have full knowledge? Have full knowledge, would

mean

> having

> > absolute power and absolute power will corrupt.

> > Maybe all the knowledge was intentionally dispersed across the

> world,

> > with some knowledge with the say Mayans some with the Greek or

> Yavans,

> > some hidden in the Kabbalah, some in western astrology etc etc.

> > <==

> > There is NO POSSIBILITY of absolute knowledge - so the above

> > statement losses its focus. But it is good to exercise your

> imagination

> > and try to correlate various fragmented knowledge found in

various

> > places - because everything may have a common source - similar

> to 'some

> > ancient lost civilization' as Graham Hancock puts it.

(in 'Finger

> prints

> > of gods') :=)

> > ==>

> > Only the big guy upstairs knows what our ancient maharishis

really

> > wanted and the actual reason why the medium of instruction was

only

> > verbal, why is all this knowledge dispersed, and why the texts

were

> > destroyed etc etc.

> > <==

> > There is no big guy upstairs, since upstairs and downstairs

are

> one;

> > east and west are one; looking at the big picture. If earth is a

> globe,

> > then which is east and which is west? which is north and which

is

> south?

> > ya, for practical purpose imagining a guy upstairs would be

good,

> but he

> > is the creation of your own mind; the truth is - " the universe

is a

> > single flux - the law, law giver, and obeyer of the laws all in

> one; the

> > creator, creation, and creativity all in one " . God is as

imperfect

> as we

> > are; the universe is as imperfect as we are; and only an

imperfect

> and

> > evolving system can be termed ALIVE. Anything perfect without

> change is

> > simply 'dead', and I don't think god is dead, divinity is dead -

it

> is

> > as alive as we are, and we ourselves is the solid proof of such a

> > divinity, such a creative force in action - the universe IS god.

> > Note: But Ash all your words too are just philosophical, where

is

> your

> > SOLID examples; practical application?

> > Love and regards,

> > Sreenadh

> >

> > , " Ash's Corner@ "

> > <kas@> wrote:

> >

> > RE: Re: Quiz - Oh! Friends! Is it

> true?!!!

> >

> > Dear Sreenadh,

> >

> > I donâ€™t think u understood what I was trying to say, Oh I

> > donâ€™t doubt that what our ancient seers taught us is not

correct.

> >

> > However my emphasis is on â€œWhat Words of the Sages?â€.

> >

> > How do we know for sure that what the sages said and what is

> translated

> > in English today are same. That canâ€™t be assumed.

> >

> > So, let me clarify, that what our ancient seers and sages taught

was

> > perfect, but what we have today cannot be said that that is

exactly

> what

> > the sages taught.

> >

> > So just quoting blindly using incomplete texts, by translators

who

> > might not have grasped the essence of what the real meaning of

the

> > shokes were meant to be, inability to interpret it w.r.t point

in

> time,

> > i.e. for example, somewhere its given that Ju in 4th house means

> > elephants at door step, now that has to be translated in todays

> worlds

> > as maybe chauffer derive limousine or something like that, and

even

> one

> > step before that, has the exact shloke been written done exactly

as

> the

> > way our ancient seers have said?

> >

> > Back then the medium of teaching was verbal so someone at some

point

> > might have documented all this.

> >

> > So many layers of area where interpretation might go wrong.

> >

> > In reference to your comment about having patience, to that I

have

> to

> > say that I have decided when I started learning Jyotish, so not

to

> > worry, itâ€™s a life long journey (or several lifetimes), but the

> > only way in my opinion to do justice to our ancient seers is to

make

> > accurate prediction, by that I mean, 80-100% of charts must be

read

> > accurately. That would automatically imply that what they

taught

> and

> > what we have understood is perfect J

> >

> > That and only that is and can be the truth.

> >

> > I also understand that there has to be a start somewhere, and u

can

> use

> > these so called remains that we have today called â€œclassic

> > textsâ€ as the starting point, but it would be not proper to

think

> > that that is what

> >

> > a) Exaclty what Maharishis

> >

> > b) We have all the texts and and in proper form

> >

> > c) We have proper translations of the same.

> >

> > So consider this as starting point and only starting point and

the

> end

> > point will be or we can say that we have understood what the

sages

> have

> > taught only when we are able to predict events 100% or rather

> understand

> > the essence of Jyotish 100%.

> >

> > Also one more thought and this is on a tangent, but since its

come

> to my

> > mind, I will note it down. Has it occurred to anyone that maybe

our

> > Maharishis DID NOT want everyone to have full knowledge? Have

full

> > knowledge, would mean having absolute power and absolute power

will

> > corrupt.

> >

> > Maybe all the knowledge was intentionally dispersed across the

> world,

> > with some knowledge with the say Mayans some with the Greek or

> Yavans,

> > some hidden in the Kabbalah, some in western astrology etc etc.

> >

> > Only the big guy upstairs knows what our ancient maharishis

really

> > wanted and the actual reason why the medium of instruction was

only

> > verbal, why is all this knowledge dispersed, and why the texts

were

> > destroyed etc etc.

> >

> > Cheers !!!

> >

> > Ash

> > > _____

> > >

> > On Behalf Of

> Sreenadh

> > > Wednesday January 9, 2008 6:55 AM

> > >

> > > Re: Quiz - Oh! Friends! Is

it

> > true?!!!

> > >

> > > Dear Ash ji,

> > > Wait pls. You will right away see that their words are

right -

> > > and error is only in our understanding. Have patiants and

don't be

> > > in a hurry.

> > > Love and regards,

> > > Sreenadh

> > >

> > > ancient_indian_

> > <%40>

> > astrology , " Ash's Corner@ "

> > > kas@ wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Dear Sreenadh,

> > > >

> > > > Yes, I agree with u, but my only grave concern and this

question

> > > that worries me is that Ã¢â‚¬Å " What did parasara actually say

and

> > teach

> > > v/s what had been understood and written down and available in

> texts

> > > today?Ã¢â‚¬Â. If there is a difference and if everyone is

> > following

> > > that blindly and if such things do not pass the test of

actually

> > > practical solving of charts then that must mean that there is

some

> > > discrepancy there.

> > > >

> > > > Cheers !!!

> > > >

> > > > Ash -> <http://www.ashtro. <http://www.ashtro.ca> ca>

> > http://www.ashtro. <http://www.ashtro.ca> ca

> > > >

> > > > _____

> > > >

> > > > ancient_indian_

> > <%40>

> > astrology

> > > [ancient_indian_

> > <%40>

> > astrology ] On Behalf Of

> > > Sreenadh

> > > > Tuesday January 8, 2008 6:15 AM

> > > > ancient_indian_

> > <%40>

> > astrology

> > > > Re: Quiz - Oh! Friends!

Is

> it

> > > true?!!!

> > > >

> > > > Dear Remesh ji,

> > > > ==>

> > > > > Both of you are correct your own way.

> > > > > But the problem is, mixing two different system.

> > > > <==

> > > > You are absolutely right.

> > > >

> > > > This is what I tried to explain in my previous post - the

> > > methodologies/systems differ - i.e. ancient Indian astrology

(let

> us

> > > denote it as AIA) and KAS. But as far us the case (statement of

> > > Parasara and Lomasa regarding 2nd lord 2nd house) is concerned

the

> > > systems/methodologies are irrelevant - what we are (and should

be)

> > > interested in is verifying whether the said result is true in

> known

> > > horoscopes or not.

> > > > I also agree that - multiple factors should indicate the

same to

> > > state such a result with confidence. But the point I wanted to

> > > emphasis (supporting the statement of the sages) was that

> > ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬ " for

> > > sure it shows a trend in that direction, i.e. in the direction

of

> > > fructification of multiple marriages; in the absence of other

> > > supporting yogas/combinations, it is NOT necessary that just

> > > because of this combination the said result should fructify;

but

> > > this shouldn't hold us back from giving proper waitage to the

> > > statemnt of those sages.

> > > > Love and regards,

> > > > Sreenadh

> > > >

> > > > ancient_indian_

> > <%40>

> > astrology , ramesh mishra

> > > <aarceemastro2002@> wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > > Dear Ash and Sreenadh,

> > > > > Sorry to intrtvene here. Both of you are correct your own

way.

> > > > > But the problem is, mixing two different system.

> > > > > In VA for second marriage second house is considered if I

am

> not

> > > wrong.

> > > > > 8th house is for break in first marriage and 7th from 8th

is

> > > second that is why 2nd house is for second marriage.

> > > > > But chart must indicate multiple marriages.

> > > > > For that we have to see the status of Ve. Its relationship

> with

> > > Ma. Sa and Ra.

> > > > > The placemeent of Ve in dual signs.

> > > > > Thanks and regards.

> > > > > Ramesh Mishra

> > > > >

> > > > > " Ash's Corner@ " kas@ wrote:

> > > > > Dear Sreenadh,

> > > > >

> > > > > I do not think we are on the same wavelength here. Ve

exalts

> in

> > > Pisces the 12th house and in upachaya from 7th house. That is

11th

> > > from Taurus. That is correct.

> > > > >

> > > > > But for a person to have extra marital relationship he

must

> have

> > > some yogs indicating that, his personality and character must

be

> > > such. There must be problems or some such things indicating.

> > > > >

> > > > > Here 2nd house means karak for marriage is what I am seeing

> > > period. If 2nd house is spoilt or Venus is spoilt then the

results

> > > of 7th house are spoilt, so it means there might be multiple

> > > marriages or no marriage or some such thing means disturbed 7th

> > > house.

> > > > >

> > > > > However for a person to break the marital bond and go

outside

> > > the boundaries and have extra marital relation must be

indicated

> by

> > > the nature of the person, status of venus etc etc i.e. in

short

> more

> > > yogs.

> > > > >

> > > > > 2nd house as per your mail, you wrote that it denotes own

> > > home??? I am not clear with that either. House and fixed

assets

> are

> > > 4th house. 2nd house is kutumb or family and wealth i.e. bonds,

> > > stocks gold as per todays day and age and back in old days,

also

> > > knowledge i.e. Karak is Jupiter lord of 9th house in Kalpurush

> chart

> > > and your Guru and father too.

> > > > >

> > > > > How are u linking home to 2nd house or let me put it in

other

> > > way, I have not understood in what context have u linked Home

to

> 2nd

> > > house?

> > > > >

> > > > > 2nd house is 10th from 5th so primary upachaya. So in

dasha of

> > > 2nd or 10th lord that might trigger 5th house. Now that only

need

> > > not be romance, it can be a person might get his or her degree

in

> > > education or might gain in speculation, or might win a lottery.

> > > > >

> > > > > For a person to have romantic relation, he or she must

have

> some

> > > particular nature or yogs like say Mars and Venus with Sa or

say

> Ma

> > > and Ve in 1 house aspected by Saturn, so that can make a

person

> more

> > > passionate (personality) and then in such case, if antra of

2nd

> lord

> > > runs or 10th lord then more chances of something that might

happen

> > > that he or she might meet someone in that antra. Again then,

if Ju

> > > aspects then it might not let it go out of hand etc etc etc

like

> > > other influence of planets modifying the overall nature of the

> > > person.

> > > > >

> > > > > In all cases if 2nd lord is in 2nd house then all such

persons

> > > will have multiple marriages etc might not hold true in all

> charts.

> > > > >

> > > > > Cheers !!!

> > > > > Ash -> http://www.ashtro. <http://www.ashtro.ca> ca

> > > > >

> > > > > ancient_indian_

> > <%40>

> > astrology

> > > [ancient_indian_

> > <%40>

> > astrology ] On Behalf Of

> > > Sreenadh

> > > > > Tuesday January 8, 2008 3:52 AM

> > > > > ancient_indian_

> > <%40>

> > astrology

> > > > > Re: Quiz - Oh!

Friends! Is

> > > it true?!!!

> > > > >

> > > > > Dear Ash,

> > > > > The 2nd and 3rd marriage/'strong extra marital relation'

> > > mentioned here is not mainly related to 5th (platonic love) or

> 12th

> > > (bed pleasures); But rather related to the house indicating 2nd

> > > marriages or relations within the relationships such as 2nd

and

> 11th

> > > houses.

> > > > > Note that 2nd house indicates own home, homely relations;

and

> > > Venus is the lord of 2nd house and 7th house in NH; and also

that

> > > the same Venus gets exalted in 11th (a house signifying 2nd

> > > marriage) from Taurus. As per NHT2, note that Jupiter is the

> > > significator of 2nd house and that Jupiter in Taurus (2nd lord

in

> > > any house is equivalent to Jupiter in that house) means, 11th

lord

> > > from Taurus in Taurus. Also note that if we use NHT2, 2nd lord

in

> > > 2nd is equivalent to Mercury in Taurus for Taurus lagna -

Mercury

> is

> > > debilitated in 11th and owns 2nd house from Tarus - indicting

> > > relation with both 2nd and 11th house (both house signifying

2nd

> > > wife/relation). Note that 11th indicates friendship turned into

> > > relation.

> > > > >

> > > > > Thus in essence, the 2nd and 3rd relation mentioned here

could

> > > be -

> > > > > * Actual marriages that took place (provided enough

indication

> > > of break of first marriage is present in horoscope)

> > > > > * Friendship turned into strong extra marital relation.

> > > > > * A relationship mainly caused by the environment/chance

with

> in

> > > the family relatives/relations

> > > > >

> > > > > This is my opinion - any how I am of the opinion that " if

2nd

> > > lord is in 2nd house - even though the native may have a clean

> image

> > > and he would be good at heart, for sure he will have extra

marital

> > > affairs; almost strong as a marriage " . It is not that the

native

> is

> > > immoral, non-sincere, does not loves his wife or something like

> > > that; it is just that for fulfillment (complimenting) he needs

> some

> > > extra relations - and have it, solid. If even by a slight

chance

> if

> > > his marriage is affected, the very next day you will find him

> > > settled in the next relation (married!) again enjoying life.

May

> be

> > > some more examples and actual experiences may confirm or

negate

> this

> > > derivation.

> > > > > Love and regards,

> > > > > Sreenadh

> > > > >

> > > > > ancient_indian_

> > <%40>

> > astrology , " Ash's Corner@ "

> > > kas@ wrote:

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Dear Sreenadh,

> > > > > >

> > > > > > I read your reply and am not able to understand what u

mean

> by

> > > 2 or 3 wives?

> > > > > > Do u mean in the literal sense, i.e. w.r.t 7th house so

> > > partner in property

> > > > > > or do mean affairs i.e. 5th house matter platonic or 12th

> > > house matters

> > > > > > which involves pleasures?

> > > > > >

> > > > > > If a person say in India as 2 or 3 wives, then that

might

> be a

> > > bigamous

> > > > > > marriage which might be punishable by law. Or do u mean

that

> > > he or she

> > > > > > might have a marriage then divorce and then marry 2nd

time

> and

> > > divorce and

> > > > > > marry 3rd time like that?

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Yes, one more thing about 2nd lord is that in antra of

2nd

> > > lord a person

> > > > > > worries, so at that time, a male might generate more Y

> > > chromosomes so that

> > > > > > might be a factor in having more female children.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > In KAS, if 3:6:10:11 points are in rising trend in Male

> chart,

> > > then mostly

> > > > > > the 1st child is female. This is due to the logic that

such

> > > persons are

> > > > > > very enterprising, just see the chart that Renu gave of

CEO

> > > where I said

> > > > > > that native might be in business but he was CEO, I wrote

a

> > > mail I think in

> > > > > > response to that as well, so if the person is taking on

> large

> > > ventures to

> > > > > > establish business or if he is rising to much power and

> > > conception happens

> > > > > > then there are MORE chances of having a female child.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Maybe that is why or some base of it might be there in

this

> > > 2nd lord in

> > > > > > lagna logic as well?

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Cheers !!!

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Ash -> <http://www.ashtro. <http://www.ashtro.ca> ca>

> > http://www.ashtro. <http://www.ashtro.ca> ca

> > > > > >

> > > > > > _____

> > > > > >

> > > > > > ancient_indian_

> > <%40>

> > astrology

> > > > > > [ancient_indian_

> > <%40>

> > astrology ] On Behalf Of

> > > Sreenadh

> > > > > > Tuesday January 8, 2008 12:56 AM

> > > > > > ancient_indian_

> > <%40>

> > astrology

> > > > > > Re: Quiz - Oh!

Friends!

> Is

> > > it true?!!!

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Dear Vinita ji,

> > > > > > That was a good attempt. As for NHT2, assume Taurus as

> > > lagna and that

> > > > > > 2nd lord from Taurus (i.e. Mercury) is in Taurus. Note

that

> > > Venus gets

> > > > > > debilitated in 5th Virgo, and also that mercury is a

female

> > > eunuch.

> > > > > > But in face of the lawyers horoscope presented by

Krishna ji

> > > and the mail

> > > > > > of Gopu ji, I should clarify the reading as per the Rishi

> > > horas. We need to

> > > > > > verify this reading, and I will stand by in support of

the

> > > sage quotes, and

> > > > > > let us see what the reality and facts has to reveal.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > " If 2nd lord is in 2nd house, the native would be

egotic. He

> > > may have 2 or

> > > > > > 3 wives (affairs or near marriage relations also will

do),

> but

> > > won't have

> > > > > > any children (especially son). He would be wealthy, will

> > > indulge in

> > > > > > righteous deeds. He will enjoy much worldly pleasures.

He

> will

> > > have much

> > > > > > income/earnings/gain/profit, but would be stingy. He will

> > > always try to

> > > > > > increase his earnings, and would be after accumulating

more

> > > and more money.

> > > > > > He would be a very able individual (in work, earnings,

> speech

> > > etc). "

> > > > > > The Dasa of the 2nd lord would be very prosperous. The

> tight-

> > > fistedness

> > > > > > of the native comes from his intention to avoid wasteful

> > > expenses; it is not

> > > > > > that he will not spend enough money for useful things.

For

> > > useful and right

> > > > > > things he will spend money without any stinginess. The

> multiple

> > > > > > relationships of the native spring not from his immoral

> > > attitude, but rather

> > > > > > from his sincerity. He is sincere to himself and to the

> people

> > > he comes in

> > > > > > contact with. If he happens to make relationships with

> women,

> > > due to the too

> > > > > > much sincerity, the chance for it to turn into a strong

> > > relation (strong as

> > > > > > marriage) is very big. This is what prompts the sage to

> > > mention - multiple

> > > > > > wives for the native.

> > > > > > Let us to what extend these clear derivations actualized

in

> > > real

> > > > > > horoscopes or not. I request the readers with the same

> > > combination to share

> > > > > > their experience; and their response/coment about the

above

> > > reading.

> > > > > > Love and regards,

> > > > > > Sreenadh

> > > > > >

> > > > > > ancient_indian_

> > <%40>

> > astrology , " vinita kumar "

> > > > > > shankar_mamta@ wrote:

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Dear Shreenadh ji,

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > ok here is my take on this ...not that it will

necessarily

> > > be close

> > > > > > > to the right answer , but then u can once again

> appreciate

> > > the

> > > > > > > effort

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Why should such a person have no son?

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > 2nd lord in 2nd...in the natural zodiac this is Venus

in

> > > Taurus.

> > > > > > > Venus is a female planet which gets strengthened in its

> > > feminine

> > > > > > > characteristics being in its own sign. Taurus is an

even

> > > sign also

> > > > > > > equal to female??? dunno!

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > i dont know if this application is correct, but

assuming

> 2nd

> > > house

> > > > > > > to be first...the fifth house is Virgo, another female

> sign.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Now for the 2nd question which is tougher....this

person

> may

> > > have 2-

> > > > > > > 3 wives....why and how?

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > 7th house is the significator of marriage....first

> marriage

> > > or all

> > > > > > > marriages?

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > i dunno what is the significator of 2nd marriage, but

i

> have

> > > heard

> > > > > > > or read somewhere that 2nd to 7th, ie., 8th H is the

> > > significator of

> > > > > > > 2nd marriage, 9th the significator of 3rd marriage and

so

> > > on...Of

> > > > > > > course, i don't know the basis of such pronouncements.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Going by the bhavat bhavam principle 8th from 8thH is

3rdH

> > > just as

> > > > > > > 3rdH is also 2nd from 2nd.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > 2nd from 2nd (Taurus) is Gemini, a dual sign and also

a

> sign

> > > of

> > > > > > > copulation....so maybe more than one marriage.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Venus from Taurus aspects Mars ruled Scorpio...Scorpio

is

> > > the hidden

> > > > > > > 8th house also related to sex....but then i don't know

how

> > > this fits

> > > > > > > in with formal 2nd or 3rd marriage. Of course, if such

> > > marriages are

> > > > > > > not in the open and hidden, there would be some

connection

> > > there.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > i am afraid this is the best i could do. i have not

used

> the

> > > nh2

> > > > > > > principle successfully because it is yet to sink in in

> terms

> > > of

> > > > > > > application.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > warm regards,

> > > > > > > vinita

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > ancient_indian_

> > <%40>

> > astrology ,

> > > Krishnamurthy

> > > > > > > Seetharama krishna_1998@ wrote:

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Dear Sreenadh ji,

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Let me try -

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > If 2nd lord is in 2nd, he would influence the 8th.

8th

> > > being 2nd

> > > > > > > from 7th influences the longevity of the spouse. Hence,

> > > might be

> > > > > > > logical to say that the native would have more than

one

> wife.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Secondly, going by the logic of Kaalapursusha chart,

it

> > > would be

> > > > > > > Venus in Taurus for Aries lagna. This also means the

7th

> > > lord in the

> > > > > > > second. The 7th lord being a maraka sitting in the

house

> of

> > > family

> > > > > > > is not good.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > But, I can't figure out why NO son.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > All the above is theory. Let me quote a practical

case.

> > > The

> > > > > > > chart that I have already shared (that of a lawyer),

he

> has

> > > 2nd lord

> > > > > > > Mercury in the 2nd houuse Virgo. He has a Son - the

only

> > > child.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Regards,

> > > > > > > > Krishna

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Sreenadh sreesog@ wrote:

> > > > > > > > Dear All,

> > > > > > > > Sage Parasara and Lomasa tells us that if 2nd lord

in

> 2nd -

> > > > > > > > * The native may have 2 or 3 wives.

> > > > > > > > * He will have NO son!!

> > > > > > > > We all know expect a very good reading speaking out

very

> > > good

> > > > > > > results such as " good family, wealth, house, beautiful

> face,

> > > > > > > earnings " etc only for such a placement. What prompted

> these

> > > grate

> > > > > > > sages to make a very strong derivation such as - " He

will

> > > have no

> > > > > > > son " ?!! The quiz question is -

> > > > > > > > * What is the logic behind?

> > > > > > > > And the verification question is - Is that result

> > > derivations

> > > > > > > true in actual experience?

> > > > > > > > Note: I hope that after the previous quiz on 2nd

house

> > > every

> > > > > > > body would be much interested in applying the learned

> > > principles

> > > > > > > here. ;=)

> > > > > > > > Love and regards,

> > > > > > > > Sreenadh

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them

fast

> > > with

> > > > > > > Search.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > Now you can chat without downloading messenger. Click here

to

> > > know how.

> > > > >

> > > >

> > >

> >

>

January 12, 2008

Dear Vinita ji,

Beutiful - as usual! I liked the quotes you selected - unique! Your words too!

Love and regards,

Sreenadh

, "vinita kumar" <shankar_mamta wrote:>> Dear Jyothi and Shreenadh,> > The TRUTH is probably out there...but it is a personal experience. > The Rishis comprehended this truth, but the moment this was written > down it probably became distorted and had to be only a "reflection" > of truth...People who read abt. truth entered into a 2nd degree of > distortion...and those who interpreted and wrote once again abt > the "reflection" went further and further away from the real thing. > > Of course there are reflections of truth in various writings which > we feel attracted to, which we want to collect, which we want to > horde in our minds, which we want to interpret or write further > about.> > But then these may be nuggets scattered here and there, small > fragments of the real TRUTH, sometimes tarnished, sometimes twisted, > sometimes coloured through various filters of the mind they have > been through.> > There is a book called the gospel of ramakrishna. it was originally > written in bengali recording first hand conversations between shri > ramakrishna and his disciples. there is a beautiful passage in it in > the words of shri ramakrishna himself:> > "The rishis of old attained knowledge of brahman. One cannot have > this so long as there is the slightest trace of worldliness. How > hard the rishis laboured! Early in the morning they would go away > from the hermitage and would spend the whole day in solitude, > meditating on Brahman. At night they would return to the hermitage > and eat a little fruit or toots. They kept their minds aloof from > the objects of sight, hearing, touch and other things of a worldly > nature. Only thus did they realise Brahman as thier own inner > consciousness".> > "The bee buzzes so long as it is not sitting on a flower. It becomes > silent when it begins to sip the honey. But sometimes intoxicated > with the honey, it buzzes again"> > "An empty pitcher makes a gurgling sound when it is dipped in water. > When it fills up it becomes silent. But when the water is poured > from it into another pitcher, then you will hear the sound again".> > Now don't u think that is beautiful!> > it also reminds me of the forum which is full of buzzing and > gurgling and also sometimes full of sound bites.:)> > love,> vinita> > , "jyothi_b_lakshmi" > jyothi_b_lakshmi@ wrote:> >> > Dear Srinadhji,> > > > I am asking you something that I wanted to ask, but held back due > to > > some reasons. But now I feel like asking. You said - Go by the > > originals; Translate yourself. N number of people will interpret > > things in n number of ways. How do we know which is correct? Are > we > > to believe in our own interpretation or are we to try out each and > > every n interpretations? How much consistent will be the results?> > > > But this is not the question I wanted to ask. Let me come to it. > You > > narrated the below riddle from Finger prints of God:> > "The questions asked to a neophyte before initiation: > > Q. What did you see on your walk?> > > > A. I saw two pots with red bamboo> > > > Q. Do you know how many plants there were?> > > > A. In one pot were 36 and in the other 72 plants, together 108.> > > > Q . Did you take home some of them for your use?> > > > A. Yes, I took home 108 plants.....> > > > Q. How can you prove that?> > > > A. I can prove it by a verse> > > > Q. How does this verse run?> > > > A. A red bamboo from Canton is rare in the world.> > > > In the groves are 36 and 72> > > > Who in the world knows the meaning of this?> > > > When we have set to work we will know the secret> > "> > You gave the interpretation that 36 and 72 are the Navamsas from > > Scorpio to Aries and the rest in other half. > > What I wanted to ask is how did you know that the numbers 36 and > 72 > > mentioned in the answers are the the navamsas?? You said so > > authentically. Hence my doubt:). Does the book say that they > indicate > > the Navamsas? Or is it your own invention?(asking just because you > > said you translate by yourself)Or is it somebody else' invention? > Are > > you so sure that it denotes Navamsas and NOTHING ELSE??> > I would like to know how you derived this interpretation.Just too > > curious to know the meaning. > > > > Regards,> > Jyothi> > > > > > , "Sreenadh" > > <sreesog@> wrote:> > >> > > > > > Dear Ash,> > > ==>> > > How do we know for sure that what the sages said and what is > > translated> > > in English today are same. That canâ€™t be assumed.> > > > > > So, let me clarify, that what our ancient seers and sages taught > was> > > perfect, but what we have today cannot be said that that is > exactly > > what> > > the sages taught.> > > <==> > > I don't depend on English translations, but only on > ORIGINALS. > > > Actually when one major thread is over I always used to upload > the> > > original quotes with commentary in the files section of the > group. > > Also> > > know that it is NOT necessary that what the sages tell us MAYNOT > BE> > > PERFECT, but as the originators of this system, they knew well > what > > they> > > are speaking about, which most of the modern day scholars seems > to > > miss.> > > ==>> > > So just quoting blindly using incomplete texts, by translators > who> > > might not have grasped the essence of what the real meaning of > the> > > shokes were meant to be,> > > <==> > > Blindness depends on the eye that see...... The second part is> > > irrelevant because I don't depend on English translations, but > > instead> > > do the translation myself.> > > ==>> > > Back then the medium of teaching was verbal so someone at some > point> > > might have documented all this.> > > <==> > > You assume that what they pened down and what they taught > might > > be> > > different; you assume that what they say and what they mean are> > > different. Then it applies to all the written and spoken > > communication> > > we do as well - in daily life. If you go by this dictom, to > > communicate> > > correcty and perfectly you would have to stop speaking and > > writing. I> > > don't think till you become Buddha or Dakshinamoorti that woule > be> > > possible. > > > ==>> > > but the only way in my opinion to do justice to our ancient > seers > > is to> > > make accurate prediction, by that I mean, 80-100% of charts must > be > > read> > > accurately. That would automatically imply that what they > taught > > and> > > what we have understood is perfect J> > > That and only that is and can be the truth.> > > <==> > > Do it.... Sincerely I am just a kid trying to understand what > > ever I> > > can by approaching the available words of those sages with > > reverence...> > > The full blown flowers can try predicting 100% accurate and try> > > convincing others...> > > ==>> > > I also understand that there has to be a start somewhere, and u > can > > use> > > these so called remains that we have today called â€œclassic> > > textsâ€ as the starting point, but it would be not proper to > think> > > that that is what> > > <==> > > But I trust that going by the available sage quotes is the > ONLY > > right> > > path to understand this ancient system; Because they knew at > least > > what> > > they are talking about, because they only created this system. > > There> > > words are better than the so called scholars who speak > elaborately > > speak> > > about the system without referring to the classics, imagining > > anything> > > that comes to their mind. ya, that could be the path of many - > but> > > certainly not my path.> > > ==>> > > a) Exaclty what Maharishis> > > <==> > > There are many. To name a few - Skanda, Daksha, Vasishta, > > Kausika> > > (Viswamitra), Sounaka, Garga, Rishiputra, Vridha Garga, > Yavaneswara,> > > Lomasa, Parasara and so on.> > > ==>> > > b) We have all the texts and and in proper form> > > <==> > > We have some texts in full and many in fragments - and all of > > them as> > > a whole is sufficiant enough to give us a complete picture. > > Remember> > > one thing - "Know what is before you and then things hidden from > you> > > will get revealed to you" - tells us an enlightened soul. That > is > > the> > > path of true learning and research....Know it as a fact.> > > ==>> > > c) We have proper translations of the same.> > > <==> > > DON'T depend on the translations, but depend on the > ORIGINALS. > > That is> > > the RIGHT path. Translations - do it yourself.> > > ==>> > > So consider this as starting point and only starting point and > the > > end> > > point will be or we can say that we have understood what the > sages > > have> > > taught only when we are able to predict events 100% or rather > > understand> > > the essence of Jyotish 100%.> > > <==> > > Even if you are one of those sages, or even if you are god -> > > predicting to 100% accuracy is an impossibility. (Meditate on - > > Why?)> > > They have clarified it amply in numerous instances, and this is > a > > one of> > > the basic facts to be understood even by a bigginner who what to > > learn> > > this subject.> > > ==>> > > Has it occurred to anyone that maybe our Maharishis DID NOT want> > > everyone to have full knowledge? Have full knowledge, would > mean > > having> > > absolute power and absolute power will corrupt.> > > Maybe all the knowledge was intentionally dispersed across the > > world,> > > with some knowledge with the say Mayans some with the Greek or > > Yavans,> > > some hidden in the Kabbalah, some in western astrology etc etc.> > > <==> > > There is NO POSSIBILITY of absolute knowledge - so the above> > > statement losses its focus. But it is good to exercise your > > imagination> > > and try to correlate various fragmented knowledge found in > various> > > places - because everything may have a common source - similar > > to 'some> > > ancient lost civilization' as Graham Hancock puts it. > (in 'Finger > > prints> > > of gods') :=)> > > ==>> > > Only the big guy upstairs knows what our ancient maharishis > really> > > wanted and the actual reason why the medium of instruction was > only> > > verbal, why is all this knowledge dispersed, and why the texts > were> > > destroyed etc etc.> > > <==> > > There is no big guy upstairs, since upstairs and downstairs > are > > one;> > > east and west are one; looking at the big picture. If earth is a > > globe,> > > then which is east and which is west? which is north and which > is > > south?> > > ya, for practical purpose imagining a guy upstairs would be > good, > > but he> > > is the creation of your own mind; the truth is - "the universe > is a> > > single flux - the law, law giver, and obeyer of the laws all in > > one; the> > > creator, creation, and creativity all in one". God is as > imperfect > > as we> > > are; the universe is as imperfect as we are; and only an > imperfect > > and> > > evolving system can be termed ALIVE. Anything perfect without > > change is> > > simply 'dead', and I don't think god is dead, divinity is dead - > it > > is> > > as alive as we are, and we ourselves is the solid proof of such a> > > divinity, such a creative force in action - the universe IS god.> > > Note: But Ash all your words too are just philosophical, where > is > > your> > > SOLID examples; practical application? > > > Love and regards,> > > Sreenadh> > > > > > > > > , "Ash's Corner@"> > > <kas@> wrote:> > > > > > RE: Re: Quiz - Oh! Friends! Is it > > true?!!!> > > > > > Dear Sreenadh,> > > > > > I donâ€™t think u understood what I was trying to say, Oh I> > > donâ€™t doubt that what our ancient seers taught us is not > correct.> > > > > > However my emphasis is on â€œWhat Words of the Sages?â€.> > > > > > How do we know for sure that what the sages said and what is > > translated> > > in English today are same. That canâ€™t be assumed.> > > > > > So, let me clarify, that what our ancient seers and sages taught > was> > > perfect, but what we have today cannot be said that that is > exactly > > what> > > the sages taught.> > > > > > So just quoting blindly using incomplete texts, by translators > who> > > might not have grasped the essence of what the real meaning of > the> > > shokes were meant to be, inability to interpret it w.r.t point > in > > time,> > > i.e. for example, somewhere its given that Ju in 4th house means> > > elephants at door step, now that has to be translated in todays > > worlds> > > as maybe chauffer derive limousine or something like that, and > even > > one> > > step before that, has the exact shloke been written done exactly > as > > the> > > way our ancient seers have said?> > > > > > Back then the medium of teaching was verbal so someone at some > point> > > might have documented all this.> > > > > > So many layers of area where interpretation might go wrong.> > > > > > In reference to your comment about having patience, to that I > have > > to> > > say that I have decided when I started learning Jyotish, so not > to> > > worry, itâ€™s a life long journey (or several lifetimes), but the> > > only way in my opinion to do justice to our ancient seers is to > make> > > accurate prediction, by that I mean, 80-100% of charts must be > read> > > accurately. That would automatically imply that what they > taught > > and> > > what we have understood is perfect J> > > > > > That and only that is and can be the truth.> > > > > > I also understand that there has to be a start somewhere, and u > can > > use> > > these so called remains that we have today called â€œclassic> > > textsâ€ as the starting point, but it would be not proper to > think> > > that that is what> > > > > > a) Exaclty what Maharishis> > > > > > b) We have all the texts and and in proper form> > > > > > c) We have proper translations of the same.> > > > > > So consider this as starting point and only starting point and > the > > end> > > point will be or we can say that we have understood what the > sages > > have> > > taught only when we are able to predict events 100% or rather > > understand> > > the essence of Jyotish 100%.> > > > > > Also one more thought and this is on a tangent, but since its > come > > to my> > > mind, I will note it down. Has it occurred to anyone that maybe > our> > > Maharishis DID NOT want everyone to have full knowledge? Have > full> > > knowledge, would mean having absolute power and absolute power > will> > > corrupt.> > > > > > Maybe all the knowledge was intentionally dispersed across the > > world,> > > with some knowledge with the say Mayans some with the Greek or > > Yavans,> > > some hidden in the Kabbalah, some in western astrology etc etc.> > > > > > Only the big guy upstairs knows what our ancient maharishis > really> > > wanted and the actual reason why the medium of instruction was > only> > > verbal, why is all this knowledge dispersed, and why the texts > were> > > destroyed etc etc.> > > > > > Cheers !!!> > > > > > Ash> > > > _____> > > >> > > > > > > On Behalf Of > > Sreenadh> > > > Wednesday January 9, 2008 6:55 AM> > > > > > > > Re: Quiz - Oh! Friends! Is > it> > > true?!!!> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > Dear Ash ji,> > > > Wait pls. You will right away see that their words are > right -> > > > and error is only in our understanding. Have patiants and > don't be> > > > in a hurry. > > > > Love and regards,> > > > Sreenadh> > > >> > > > ancient_indian_> > > <%40>> > > astrology , "Ash's Corner@"> > > > kas@ wrote:> > > > >> > > > > Dear Sreenadh,> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > > Yes, I agree with u, but my only grave concern and this > question> > > > that worries me is that Ã¢â‚¬Å"What did parasara actually say > and> > > teach> > > > v/s what had been understood and written down and available in > > texts> > > > today?Ã¢â‚¬Â. If there is a difference and if everyone is> > > following> > > > that blindly and if such things do not pass the test of > actually> > > > practical solving of charts then that must mean that there is > some> > > > discrepancy there.> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > > Cheers !!!> > > > >> > > > > Ash -> <http://www.ashtro. <http://www.ashtro.ca> ca>> > > http://www.ashtro. <http://www.ashtro.ca> ca> > > > >> > > > > _____> > > > >> > > > > ancient_indian_> > > <%40>> > > astrology > > > > [ancient_indian_> > > <%40>> > > astrology ] On Behalf Of> > > > Sreenadh> > > > > Tuesday January 8, 2008 6:15 AM> > > > > ancient_indian_> > > <%40>> > > astrology > > > > > Re: Quiz - Oh! Friends! > Is > > it> > > > true?!!!> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > > Dear Remesh ji,> > > > > ==>> > > > > > Both of you are correct your own way.> > > > > > But the problem is, mixing two different system.> > > > > <==> > > > > You are absolutely right.> > > > >> > > > > This is what I tried to explain in my previous post - the> > > > methodologies/systems differ - i.e. ancient Indian astrology > (let > > us> > > > denote it as AIA) and KAS. But as far us the case (statement of> > > > Parasara and Lomasa regarding 2nd lord 2nd house) is concerned > the> > > > systems/methodologies are irrelevant - what we are (and should > be)> > > > interested in is verifying whether the said result is true in > > known> > > > horoscopes or not.> > > > > I also agree that - multiple factors should indicate the > same to> > > > state such a result with confidence. But the point I wanted to> > > > emphasis (supporting the statement of the sages) was that> > > ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬" for> > > > sure it shows a trend in that direction, i.e. in the direction > of> > > > fructification of multiple marriages; in the absence of other> > > > supporting yogas/combinations, it is NOT necessary that just> > > > because of this combination the said result should fructify; > but> > > > this shouldn't hold us back from giving proper waitage to the> > > > statemnt of those sages.> > > > > Love and regards,> > > > > Sreenadh> > > > >> > > > > ancient_indian_> > > <%40>> > > astrology , ramesh mishra> > > > <aarceemastro2002@> wrote:> > > > > >> > > > > > Dear Ash and Sreenadh,> > > > > > Sorry to intrtvene here. Both of you are correct your own > way.> > > > > > But the problem is, mixing two different system.> > > > > > In VA for second marriage second house is considered if I > am > > not> > > > wrong.> > > > > > 8th house is for break in first marriage and 7th from 8th > is> > > > second that is why 2nd house is for second marriage.> > > > > > But chart must indicate multiple marriages.> > > > > > For that we have to see the status of Ve. Its relationship > > with> > > > Ma. Sa and Ra.> > > > > > The placemeent of Ve in dual signs.> > > > > > Thanks and regards.> > > > > > Ramesh Mishra> > > > > >> > > > > > "Ash's Corner@" kas@ wrote:> > > > > > Dear Sreenadh,> > > > > >> > > > > > I do not think we are on the same wavelength here. Ve > exalts > > in> > > > Pisces the 12th house and in upachaya from 7th house. That is > 11th> > > > from Taurus. That is correct.> > > > > >> > > > > > But for a person to have extra marital relationship he > must > > have> > > > some yogs indicating that, his personality and character must > be> > > > such. There must be problems or some such things indicating.> > > > > >> > > > > > Here 2nd house means karak for marriage is what I am seeing> > > > period. If 2nd house is spoilt or Venus is spoilt then the > results> > > > of 7th house are spoilt, so it means there might be multiple> > > > marriages or no marriage or some such thing means disturbed 7th> > > > house.> > > > > >> > > > > > However for a person to break the marital bond and go > outside> > > > the boundaries and have extra marital relation must be > indicated > > by> > > > the nature of the person, status of venus etc etc i.e. in > short > > more> > > > yogs.> > > > > >> > > > > > 2nd house as per your mail, you wrote that it denotes own> > > > home??? I am not clear with that either. House and fixed > assets > > are> > > > 4th house. 2nd house is kutumb or family and wealth i.e. bonds,> > > > stocks gold as per todays day and age and back in old days, > also> > > > knowledge i.e. Karak is Jupiter lord of 9th house in Kalpurush > > chart> > > > and your Guru and father too.> > > > > >> > > > > > How are u linking home to 2nd house or let me put it in > other> > > > way, I have not understood in what context have u linked Home > to > > 2nd> > > > house?> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > 2nd house is 10th from 5th so primary upachaya. So in > dasha of> > > > 2nd or 10th lord that might trigger 5th house. Now that only > need> > > > not be romance, it can be a person might get his or her degree > in> > > > education or might gain in speculation, or might win a lottery.> > > > > >> > > > > > For a person to have romantic relation, he or she must > have > > some> > > > particular nature or yogs like say Mars and Venus with Sa or > say > > Ma> > > > and Ve in 1 house aspected by Saturn, so that can make a > person > > more> > > > passionate (personality) and then in such case, if antra of > 2nd > > lord> > > > runs or 10th lord then more chances of something that might > happen> > > > that he or she might meet someone in that antra. Again then, > if Ju> > > > aspects then it might not let it go out of hand etc etc etc > like> > > > other influence of planets modifying the overall nature of the> > > > person.> > > > > >> > > > > > In all cases if 2nd lord is in 2nd house then all such > persons> > > > will have multiple marriages etc might not hold true in all > > charts.> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > Cheers !!!> > > > > > Ash -> http://www.ashtro. <http://www.ashtro.ca> ca> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > ancient_indian_> > > <%40>> > > astrology > > > > [ancient_indian_> > > <%40>> > > astrology ] On Behalf Of> > > > Sreenadh> > > > > > Tuesday January 8, 2008 3:52 AM> > > > > > ancient_indian_> > > <%40>> > > astrology > > > > > > Re: Quiz - Oh! > Friends! Is> > > > it true?!!!> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > Dear Ash,> > > > > > The 2nd and 3rd marriage/'strong extra marital relation'> > > > mentioned here is not mainly related to 5th (platonic love) or > > 12th> > > > (bed pleasures); But rather related to the house indicating 2nd> > > > marriages or relations within the relationships such as 2nd > and > > 11th> > > > houses.> > > > > > Note that 2nd house indicates own home, homely relations; > and> > > > Venus is the lord of 2nd house and 7th house in NH; and also > that> > > > the same Venus gets exalted in 11th (a house signifying 2nd> > > > marriage) from Taurus. As per NHT2, note that Jupiter is the> > > > significator of 2nd house and that Jupiter in Taurus (2nd lord > in> > > > any house is equivalent to Jupiter in that house) means, 11th > lord> > > > from Taurus in Taurus. Also note that if we use NHT2, 2nd lord > in> > > > 2nd is equivalent to Mercury in Taurus for Taurus lagna - > Mercury > > is> > > > debilitated in 11th and owns 2nd house from Tarus - indicting> > > > relation with both 2nd and 11th house (both house signifying > 2nd> > > > wife/relation). Note that 11th indicates friendship turned into> > > > relation.> > > > > >> > > > > > Thus in essence, the 2nd and 3rd relation mentioned here > could> > > > be -> > > > > > * Actual marriages that took place (provided enough > indication> > > > of break of first marriage is present in horoscope)> > > > > > * Friendship turned into strong extra marital relation.> > > > > > * A relationship mainly caused by the environment/chance > with > > in> > > > the family relatives/relations> > > > > >> > > > > > This is my opinion - any how I am of the opinion that "if > 2nd> > > > lord is in 2nd house - even though the native may have a clean > > image> > > > and he would be good at heart, for sure he will have extra > marital> > > > affairs; almost strong as a marriage". It is not that the > native > > is> > > > immoral, non-sincere, does not loves his wife or something like> > > > that; it is just that for fulfillment (complimenting) he needs > > some> > > > extra relations - and have it, solid. If even by a slight > chance > > if> > > > his marriage is affected, the very next day you will find him> > > > settled in the next relation (married!) again enjoying life. > May > > be> > > > some more examples and actual experiences may confirm or > negate > > this> > > > derivation.> > > > > > Love and regards,> > > > > > Sreenadh> > > > > >> > > > > > ancient_indian_> > > <%40>> > > astrology , "Ash's Corner@"> > > > kas@ wrote:> > > > > > >> > > > > > > Dear Sreenadh,> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > > I read your reply and am not able to understand what u > mean > > by> > > > 2 or 3 wives?> > > > > > > Do u mean in the literal sense, i.e. w.r.t 7th house so> > > > partner in property> > > > > > > or do mean affairs i.e. 5th house matter platonic or 12th> > > > house matters> > > > > > > which involves pleasures?> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > > If a person say in India as 2 or 3 wives, then that > might > > be a> > > > bigamous> > > > > > > marriage which might be punishable by law. Or do u mean > that> > > > he or she> > > > > > > might have a marriage then divorce and then marry 2nd > time > > and> > > > divorce and> > > > > > > marry 3rd time like that?> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > > Yes, one more thing about 2nd lord is that in antra of > 2nd> > > > lord a person> > > > > > > worries, so at that time, a male might generate more Y> > > > chromosomes so that> > > > > > > might be a factor in having more female children.> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > > In KAS, if 3:6:10:11 points are in rising trend in Male > > chart,> > > > then mostly> > > > > > > the 1st child is female. This is due to the logic that > such> > > > persons are> > > > > > > very enterprising, just see the chart that Renu gave of > CEO> > > > where I said> > > > > > > that native might be in business but he was CEO, I wrote > a> > > > mail I think in> > > > > > > response to that as well, so if the person is taking on > > large> > > > ventures to> > > > > > > establish business or if he is rising to much power and> > > > conception happens> > > > > > > then there are MORE chances of having a female child.> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > > Maybe that is why or some base of it might be there in > this> > > > 2nd lord in> > > > > > > lagna logic as well?> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > > Cheers !!!> > > > > > >> > > > > > > Ash -> <http://www.ashtro. <http://www.ashtro.ca> ca>> > > http://www.ashtro. <http://www.ashtro.ca> ca> > > > > > >> > > > > > > _____> > > > > > >> > > > > > > ancient_indian_> > > <%40>> > > astrology > > > > > > > [ancient_indian_> > > <%40>> > > astrology ] On Behalf Of> > > > Sreenadh> > > > > > > Tuesday January 8, 2008 12:56 AM> > > > > > > ancient_indian_> > > <%40>> > > astrology > > > > > > > Re: Quiz - Oh! > Friends! > > Is> > > > it true?!!!> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > > Dear Vinita ji,> > > > > > > That was a good attempt. As for NHT2, assume Taurus as> > > > lagna and that> > > > > > > 2nd lord from Taurus (i.e. Mercury) is in Taurus. Note > that> > > > Venus gets> > > > > > > debilitated in 5th Virgo, and also that mercury is a > female> > > > eunuch.> > > > > > > But in face of the lawyers horoscope presented by > Krishna ji> > > > and the mail> > > > > > > of Gopu ji, I should clarify the reading as per the Rishi> > > > horas. We need to> > > > > > > verify this reading, and I will stand by in support of > the> > > > sage quotes, and> > > > > > > let us see what the reality and facts has to reveal. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > "If 2nd lord is in 2nd house, the native would be > egotic. He> > > > may have 2 or> > > > > > > 3 wives (affairs or near marriage relations also will > do), > > but> > > > won't have> > > > > > > any children (especially son). He would be wealthy, will> > > > indulge in> > > > > > > righteous deeds. He will enjoy much worldly pleasures. > He > > will> > > > have much> > > > > > > income/earnings/gain/profit, but would be stingy. He will> > > > always try to> > > > > > > increase his earnings, and would be after accumulating > more> > > > and more money.> > > > > > > He would be a very able individual (in work, earnings, > > speech> > > > etc)."> > > > > > > The Dasa of the 2nd lord would be very prosperous. The > > tight-> > > > fistedness> > > > > > > of the native comes from his intention to avoid wasteful> > > > expenses; it is not> > > > > > > that he will not spend enough money for useful things. > For> > > > useful and right> > > > > > > things he will spend money without any stinginess. The > > multiple> > > > > > > relationships of the native spring not from his immoral> > > > attitude, but rather> > > > > > > from his sincerity. He is sincere to himself and to the > > people> > > > he comes in> > > > > > > contact with. If he happens to make relationships with > > women,> > > > due to the too> > > > > > > much sincerity, the chance for it to turn into a strong> > > > relation (strong as> > > > > > > marriage) is very big. This is what prompts the sage to> > > > mention - multiple> > > > > > > wives for the native.> > > > > > > Let us to what extend these clear derivations actualized > in> > > > real> > > > > > > horoscopes or not. I request the readers with the same> > > > combination to share> > > > > > > their experience; and their response/coment about the > above> > > > reading.> > > > > > > Love and regards,> > > > > > > Sreenadh> > > > > > >> > > > > > > ancient_indian_> > > <%40>> > > astrology , "vinita kumar"> > > > > > > shankar_mamta@ wrote:> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > Dear Shreenadh ji,> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > ok here is my take on this ...not that it will > necessarily> > > > be close> > > > > > > > to the right answer , but then u can once again > > appreciate> > > > the> > > > > > > > effort > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > Why should such a person have no son?> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > 2nd lord in 2nd...in the natural zodiac this is Venus > in> > > > Taurus.> > > > > > > > Venus is a female planet which gets strengthened in its> > > > feminine> > > > > > > > characteristics being in its own sign. Taurus is an > even> > > > sign also> > > > > > > > equal to female??? dunno!> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > i dont know if this application is correct, but > assuming > > 2nd> > > > house> > > > > > > > to be first...the fifth house is Virgo, another female > > sign.> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > Now for the 2nd question which is tougher....this > person > > may> > > > have 2-> > > > > > > > 3 wives....why and how?> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > 7th house is the significator of marriage....first > > marriage> > > > or all> > > > > > > > marriages?> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > i dunno what is the significator of 2nd marriage, but > i > > have> > > > heard> > > > > > > > or read somewhere that 2nd to 7th, ie., 8th H is the> > > > significator of> > > > > > > > 2nd marriage, 9th the significator of 3rd marriage and > so> > > > on...Of> > > > > > > > course, i don't know the basis of such pronouncements.> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > Going by the bhavat bhavam principle 8th from 8thH is > 3rdH> > > > just as> > > > > > > > 3rdH is also 2nd from 2nd.> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > 2nd from 2nd (Taurus) is Gemini, a dual sign and also > a > > sign> > > > of> > > > > > > > copulation....so maybe more than one marriage.> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > Venus from Taurus aspects Mars ruled Scorpio...Scorpio > is> > > > the hidden> > > > > > > > 8th house also related to sex....but then i don't know > how> > > > this fits> > > > > > > > in with formal 2nd or 3rd marriage. Of course, if such> > > > marriages are> > > > > > > > not in the open and hidden, there would be some > connection> > > > there.> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > i am afraid this is the best i could do. i have not > used > > the> > > > nh2> > > > > > > > principle successfully because it is yet to sink in in > > terms> > > > of> > > > > > > > application.> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > warm regards,> > > > > > > > vinita> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > ancient_indian_> > > <%40>> > > astrology ,> > > > Krishnamurthy> > > > > > > > Seetharama krishna_1998@ wrote:> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > Dear Sreenadh ji,> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > Let me try -> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > If 2nd lord is in 2nd, he would influence the 8th. > 8th> > > > being 2nd> > > > > > > > from 7th influences the longevity of the spouse. Hence,> > > > might be> > > > > > > > logical to say that the native would have more than > one > > wife.> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > Secondly, going by the logic of Kaalapursusha chart, > it> > > > would be> > > > > > > > Venus in Taurus for Aries lagna. This also means the > 7th> > > > lord in the> > > > > > > > second. The 7th lord being a maraka sitting in the > house > > of> > > > family> > > > > > > > is not good.> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > But, I can't figure out why NO son.> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > All the above is theory. Let me quote a practical > case.> > > > The> > > > > > > > chart that I have already shared (that of a lawyer), > he > > has> > > > 2nd lord> > > > > > > > Mercury in the 2nd houuse Virgo. He has a Son - the > only> > > > child.> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > Regards,> > > > > > > > > Krishna> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > Sreenadh sreesog@ wrote:> > > > > > > > > Dear All,> > > > > > > > > Sage Parasara and Lomasa tells us that if 2nd lord > in > > 2nd -> > > > > > > > > * The native may have 2 or 3 wives.> > > > > > > > > * He will have NO son!!> > > > > > > > > We all know expect a very good reading speaking out > very> > > > good> > > > > > > > results such as "good family, wealth, house, beautiful > > face,> > > > > > > > earnings" etc only for such a placement. What prompted > > these> > > > grate> > > > > > > > sages to make a very strong derivation such as - "He > will> > > > have no> > > > > > > > son"?!! The quiz question is -> > > > > > > > > * What is the logic behind?> > > > > > > > > And the verification question is - Is that result> > > > derivations> > > > > > > > true in actual experience?> > > > > > > > > Note: I hope that after the previous quiz on 2nd > house> > > > every> > > > > > > > body would be much interested in applying the learned> > > > principles> > > > > > > > here. ;=)> > > > > > > > > Love and regards,> > > > > > > > > Sreenadh> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them > fast> > > > with> > > > > > > > Search.> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > Now you can chat without downloading messenger. Click here > to> > > > know how.> > > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > >> >>