Base principles and Schools of astrology

September 22, 2009

Dear Manoj ji, The positive note in your message is appreciated. But as you know - * Even if we don't value religious classifications (since they are very popular) mentioning the same is useful in easily conveying some ideas. * Even if we don't value cast classifications (since they are very

popular) mentioning the same is useful in conveying some ideas. * Even if we don't value school classifications in astrology (since they are very

popular) mentioning the same is useful in conveying some ideas. It is not us who introduce the classifications but the world, we when talk just use it to convey - with the use of minimum words - what we want to convey. In truth as I used to say numerous time - all classifications are false and bound to be false! //My request is, dont say, Schools,....// This is not possible since classification and categorization provided by world or intellect is our major tool of analysis and easy conveying of ideas. It is better to call a spade a spade. // as then a meaningless comparison starts which is not healthy. // Yes, this is a true possibility. But if we know that schools are mentioned just for easy conveying of ideas and not due to inherent conflict or offensive effort - then it can be understood and absorbed in positive spirit I believe. Let us take another example - We believe that no planet is benetic or malefic. Whether some some planet or house should be considered benefic or malefic in some came depends on the significance they indicate in that case. But what would be the result if we demand that the sages and astro classics should not use the words "benefic" or "malefic"? Will that be productive or counter productive? Will we be then able to understand what they say easly or will struggle to understand? Just a thought. :)Love and regards,Sreenadh , Manoj Kumar <mouji99 wrote:>> First of all, please do not differentiate astrology between schools. Astrology is not something which originates out of some particular clan. It is knowledge which is spanned through vast areas and different people understand it differently. "Ekam Satya, vipranaam bahuda vadanti", truth is one but different people define it differently is saying. > ï¿½> Affliction is an affliction which is caused by malefics in a horoscope. It may be through conjunction, aspect or placement. Functional and Natural, both malefics included. > ï¿½> In Jaimini also the same principle is followed though different scholars of Jaimini have different methods of computing things like dasha, karakas and so on and on and on. Eight or seven karakas, about brahma, about swamsha, karakamsha, about myths associated with it and their own explanations. But surpringly some people fail to see the logic and then an endless debate follows. Just quoting a case in example here. > ï¿½> In methods of calculation of Chara Dasha, people add one year for exaltation and deduct two years for debilitation. If Jupiter is placed in Capricorn, then its dasha becomes Zero Years, which is unfathomable.> ï¿½> So long as we are able to stick to be basics, I think, our astrology would progress on the right lines. My request is, dont say, Schools, as then a meaningless comparison starts which is not healthy. > ï¿½> regards,> ï¿½> Mouji.>

September 22, 2009

Classics have called them Shubha and Paapa. It is Mckauley's english which makes them benefic or a malefic whereas in practice you find that there no outright benefic and no outright malefic and so only both are required for a normal living, just like a horoscope having 6 shubha and 6 paapa houses or bhavas.

Doesnt a Shubha bhava becomes "ashubha" bhava also in chart when studied in totality.

regards,

Mouji--- On Tue, 9/22/09, sreesog <sreesog wrote:

sreesog <sreesog Re: Base principles and Schools of astrology Date: Tuesday, September 22, 2009, 4:35 PM

Dear Manoj ji, The positive note in your message is appreciated. But as you know - * Even if we don't value religious classifications (since they are very popular) mentioning the same is useful in easily conveying some ideas. * Even if we don't value cast classifications (since they are very popular) mentioning the same is useful in conveying some ideas. * Even if we don't value school classifications in astrology (since they are very popular) mentioning the same is useful in conveying some ideas. It is not us who introduce the classifications but the world, we when talk just use it to convey - with the use of minimum words - what we want to convey. In truth as I used to say numerous time - all classifications are false and bound to be false! //My request is, dont say, Schools,.... // This is not possible since classification and categorization provided by world or intellect is our major tool of analysis and easy conveying of ideas. It is better to call a spade a spade. // as then a meaningless comparison starts which is not healthy. // Yes, this is a true possibility. But if we know that schools are mentioned just for easy conveying of ideas and not due to inherent conflict or offensive effort - then it can be understood and absorbed in positive spirit I believe. Let us take another example - We believe that no planet is benetic or malefic. Whether some some planet or house should be considered benefic or malefic in some came depends on the significance they indicate in that case. But what would be the result if we demand that the sages and astro classics should not use the words

"benefic" or "malefic"? Will that be productive or counter productive? Will we be then able to understand what they say easly or will struggle to understand? Just a thought. :)Love and regards,Sreenadhancient_indian_ astrology, Manoj Kumar <mouji99 wrote:>> First of all, please do not differentiate astrology between schools. Astrology is not something which originates out of some particular clan. It is knowledge which is spanned through vast areas and different people understand it differently. "Ekam Satya, vipranaam bahuda vadanti", truth is one but different people define it differently is saying. > ï¿½> Affliction is an affliction which is caused by malefics in a horoscope. It may be through conjunction, aspect or placement. Functional and Natural, both malefics included. > ï¿½> In Jaimini also

the same principle is followed though different scholars of Jaimini have different methods of computing things like dasha, karakas and so on and on and on. Eight or seven karakas, about brahma, about swamsha, karakamsha, about myths associated with it and their own explanations. But surpringly some people fail to see the logic and then an endless debate follows. Just quoting a case in example here. > ï¿½> In methods of calculation of Chara Dasha, people add one year for exaltation and deduct two years for debilitation. If Jupiter is placed in Capricorn, then its dasha becomes Zero Years, which is unfathomable.> ï¿½> So long as we are able to stick to be basics, I think, our astrology would progress on the right lines. My request is, dont say, Schools, as then a meaningless comparison starts which is not healthy. > ï¿½> regards,> ï¿½>

Mouji.>

September 22, 2009

Dear Manoj Kumar ji, Agreed that I am using the word 'benefic' for Subha and 'malefic' for Papa. But if you disagree to that, then you will have to tell me several new words. For example - * What is the Sanskrit word that you will use for 'functional benefic' that you are using so regularly? * What is the Sanskrit word that you will use for 'functional malefic' that you are using so regularly? * Similarly what are special Sanskrit words to be used for 'natural benefic' or 'natural malefic'? I am well comfortable with such Sanskrit terms and so would ask you ask - * How will you differentiate between (using english words) Agneya graha and Papa? Please give the defenition for both of them as clearly differentiating between them (they are different!) * What are the english words for Soumya and Subha? (They are diffent!) What is your defenition for these words? * Is it that Asubha and Papa mean the same or are they diffenet? If yes, how? If you like the use of Sanskrit words better than the english words in common use, then no issues - BUT use them with understanding! Let me ensure that you understands those sanskrit words better than Mckauley's english - then I will use them. Otherwise that too willnot be intelligible. So let us try from the basics itself! What do you say? Love and regards,Sreenadh , Manoj Kumar <mouji99 wrote:>> Classics have called them Shubha and Paapa. It is Mckauley's english which makes them benefic or a malefic whereas in practice you find that there no outright benefic and no outright malefic and so only both are required for a normal living, just like a horoscope having 6 shubha and 6 paapa houses or bhavas.> ï¿½> Doesnt a Shubha bhava becomes "ashubha" bhava also in chart when studied in totality.> ï¿½> regards,> ï¿½> Mouji

September 24, 2009

Dear Manoj Kumar ji, This mail is still pending to be answered by you. A discussion could become much informative. Love and regards,Sreenadh , "sreesog" <sreesog wrote:Dear Manoj Kumar ji,

Agreed that I am using the word 'benefic' for Subha and 'malefic' for

Papa. But if you disagree to that, then you will have to tell me

several new words. For example - * What is the Sanskrit word that you will use for 'functional benefic' that you are using so regularly? * What is the Sanskrit word that you will use for 'functional malefic' that you are using so regularly? * Similarly what are special Sanskrit words to be used for 'natural benefic' or 'natural malefic'? I am well comfortable with such Sanskrit terms and so would ask you ask -

* How will you differentiate between (using english words) Agneya graha

and Papa? Please give the defenition for both of them as clearly

differentiating between them (they are different!) * What are the english words for Soumya and Subha? (They are diffent!) What is your defenition for these words? * Is it that Asubha and Papa mean the same or are they diffenet? If yes, how? If

you like the use of Sanskrit words better than the english words in

common use, then no issues - BUT use them with understanding! Let me

ensure that you understands those sanskrit words better than Mckauley's

english - then I will use them. Otherwise that too willnot be

intelligible. So let us try from the basics itself! What do you

say? Love and regards,Sreenadh> , Manoj Kumar> mouji99@ wrote:> >> > Classics have called them Shubha and Paapa. It is Mckauley's english> which makes them benefic or a malefic whereas in practice you find that> there no outright benefic and no outright malefic and so only both are> required for a normal living, just like a horoscope having 6 shubha and> 6 paapa houses or bhavas.> > ï¿½> > Doesnt a Shubha bhava becomes "ashubha" bhava also in chart when> studied in totality.> > ï¿½> > regards,> > ï¿½> > Mouji>

September 24, 2009

Dear Sreenadh ji,

Yes this mail is pending discussion.

A soumya and shubha are not the same planets. Soumya grahas may or may not become shubha grahas because it would depend on the horoscope. A papa can also be a shubha graha. I had not disagreed to your use of the word but only had said that english language does not necessarily convey the real meaning at times. * What is the Sanskrit word that you will use for 'functional benefic' that you are using so regularly?

So regularly. Am I writing so regularly? But if the mail is addressed in the tenor that it is then a functional benefic would be called "tatkalik shubha" * What is the Sanskrit word that you will use for 'functional malefic' that you are using so regularly? So regularly. Am I writing so regularly? But if the mail is addressed in the tenor that it is then a functional benefic would be called "tatkalik ashubha"* Similarly what are special Sanskrit words to be used for 'natural benefic' or 'natural malefic'? "Naisargik subha and naisargik papa" * What are the english words for Soumya and Subha? (They are diffent!) What is your defenition for these words? * Is it that Asubha and Papa mean the same or are they diffenet? If yes, how?

Somehow the mail was giving out a message that please dont try to mess with me whereas the purpose of my writing that mail was something different. English does not convey the real meaning of the words. Essence is when you understand the meaning being conveyed a sentence or a word in its proper form. You say you wish to "test" my knowledge of Sanskrit before you start communicating in those words. Its your wish, please go ahead.

How often have we seen that people do pick up theoretical knowledge whereas they completely lack the practical knowledge of astrology. If I remember, I had given particulars of a chart in one of the mails about 3 or 4 days back but am yet to see any stalwart responding to it.

Soumya and Shubha, Ashubha and Papa. Ashubha grahas need to be seen in a chart whereas papa are defined as papa in astrological texts. And by the way, do you think, this combination of natural and functional helps, if so, then please show me a case using them, perhaps it may help in learning it further.

And kindly elucidate on where was I lacking in understanding the terms.

regards,

Mouji--- On Thu, 9/24/09, sreesog <sreesog wrote:

sreesog <sreesog Re: Base principles and Schools of astrology Date: Thursday, September 24, 2009, 2:58 PM

Dear Manoj Kumar ji, This mail is still pending to be answered by you. A discussion could become much informative. Love and regards,Sreenadhancient_indian_ astrology, "sreesog" <sreesog wrote:Dear Manoj Kumar ji, > ancient_indian_ astrology, Manoj Kumar> mouji99@ wrote:> >> > Classics have called them Shubha and Paapa. It is Mckauley's english> which makes them benefic or a malefic whereas in practice you find that> there no outright benefic and no outright malefic and so only both are> required for a normal living, just like a horoscope having 6 shubha and> 6 paapa houses or bhavas.> > ï¿½> > Doesnt a Shubha bhava becomes "ashubha" bhava also in

chart when> studied in totality.> > ï¿½> > regards,> > ï¿½> > Mouji>

September 24, 2009

Dear Mouji ji,//I had given particulars of a chart in one of the mails about 3 or 4 days back but am yet to see any stalwart responding to it. //I do not know who is the stalwart, but haven't seen any chart from you in the group. Kindly reconfirm.

Glad to see your greater participation in the discussions, though 'so regularly' would be even better'!:-)RegardsNeelam

September 24, 2009

Since the thread is revolving around women, this chart also belongs to a woman. Giving it once again.

DOB = 5-9-1963

TOB = 22.00 hrs

POB = Ferozepur, Punjab, India

Coordinates: 74E36, 30N55, TZ 5.30 hrs

regards,

Mouji

--- On Thu, 9/24/09, neelam gupta <neelamgupta07 wrote:

neelam gupta <neelamgupta07Re: Re: Base principles and Schools of astrology Date: Thursday, September 24, 2009, 5:51 PM

Dear Mouji ji,//I had given particulars of a chart in one of the mails about 3 or 4 days back but am yet to see any stalwart responding to it. //I do not know who is the stalwart, but haven't seen any chart from you in the group. Kindly reconfirm.Glad to see your greater participation in the discussions, though 'so regularly' would be even better'!:-)RegardsNeelam

September 25, 2009

Dear Manoj ji, Yesterday I was busy and couldn't reply. I will reply to this mail in detail today night. Regards,Sreenadh-Manoj Kumar09/24/09 04:11 pm Subject: Re: Re: Base principles and Schools of astrology Dear Sreenadh ji, Yes this mail is pending discussion. A soumya and shubha are not the same planets. Soumya grahas may or may not become shubha grahas because it would depend on the horoscope. A papa can also be a shubha graha. I had not disagreed to your use of the word but only had said that english language does not necessarily convey the real meaning at times. * What is the Sanskrit word that you will use for 'functional benefic' that you are using so regularly? So regularly. Am I writing so regularly? But if the mail is addressed in the tenor that it is then a functional benefic would be called "tatkalik shubha" * What is the Sanskrit word that you will use for 'functional malefic' that you are using so regularly? So regularly. Am I writing so regularly? But if the mail is addressed in the tenor that it is then a functional benefic would be called "tatkalik ashubha" * Similarly what are special Sanskrit words to be used for 'natural benefic' or 'natural malefic'? "Naisargik subha and naisargik papa" * What are the english words for Soumya and Subha? (They are diffent!) What is your defenition for these words? * Is it that Asubha and Papa mean the same or are they diffenet? If yes, how? Somehow the mail was giving out a message that please dont try to mess with me whereas the purpose of my writing that mail was something different. English does not convey the real meaning of the words. Essence is when you understand the meaning being conveyed a sentence or a word in its proper form. You say you wish to "test" my knowledge of Sanskrit before you start communicating in those words. Its your wish, please go ahead. How often have we seen that people do pick up theoretical knowledge whereas they completely lack the practical knowledge of astrology. If I remember, I had given particulars of a chart in one of the mails about 3 or 4 days back but am yet to see any stalwart responding to it. Soumya and Shubha, Ashubha and Papa. Ashubha grahas need to be seen in a chart whereas papa are defined as papa in astrological texts. And by the way, do you think, this combination of natural and functional helps, if so, then please show me a case using them, perhaps it may help in learning it further. And kindly elucidate on where was I lacking in understanding the terms. regards, Mouji --- On Thu, 9/24/09, sreesog <sreesog wrote: sreesog <sreesog Re: Base principles and Schools of astrology Thursday, September 24, 2009, 2:58 PM Dear Manoj Kumar ji, This mail is still pending to be answered by you. A discussion could become much informative. Love and regards, Sreenadh ancient_indian_ astrology, "sreesog" <sreesog wrote: Dear Manoj Kumar ji, > ancient_indian_ astrology, Manoj Kumar > mouji99@ wrote: > > > > Classics have called them Shubha and Paapa. It is Mckauley's english > which makes them benefic or a malefic whereas in practice you find that > there no outright benefic and no outright malefic and so only both are > required for a normal living, just like a horoscope having 6 shubha and > 6 paapa houses or bhavas. > > Ã¯Â¿Â½ > > Doesnt a Shubha bhava becomes "ashubha" bhava also in chart when > studied in totality. > > Ã¯Â¿Â½ > > regards, > > Ã¯Â¿Â½ > > Mouji >

October 8, 2009

Dear Manoj ji,

It is today that I got some time to sit in a relaxed mood and answer

this mail - please forgive the delay.

1) Question:

What

are the english words for Soumya and Subha? (They are different!) What is your

defenition for these words?

Answer (Manoj ji):

A soumya and shubha are not the same planets. Soumya grahas may or may not

become shubha grahas because it would depend on the horoscope. A papa can also

be a shubha graha. I had not disagreed to your use of the word but only had

said that English language does not necessarily convey the real meaning at

times.

Review:

The questions were technical ones about terminology used and

not general ones. Even though the above answer will seem correct from an

average perspective – from the traditional perspective the above answer is

wrong. Correct definition of these terms as per Brihat Jataka is given below –

Subha: Jupiter, Venus, strong Moon, Mercury placed alone or with

benefics (i.e. not along with malefics)

Soumya: Moon, Mercury, Jupiter, Venus

Please note that whether Moon has strength (Pakshabala) is

not considered here to determine whether Moon is soumya or not. Moon and

Mercury are always Soumya. But Moon will not be called Subha if it does not

have strength (Pakshabala) and Mercury will not be called Subha if it is placed

along with malefics. Words are subtle and their meanings differ when used in

technical sense in astrology.

Refer to quotes such as Reference: "Ksheenenwarka

maheepatarka sutaya papaH" etc for clarification.

I will provide the definition of other two related words

also for clarification.

Papa (opposite of Subha) : Mars, Saturn, Sun, Weak Moon

(without Pakshabala), Mercury placed along with malefics.. (most scholars add

Rahu and Ketu also into this list)

Agneya (opposite of Soumya): Sun, Mars, Saturn, Rahu Ketu.

Please note that Weak Moon and Mercury placed along with

malefics can become papa, but they can never be Agneya; because Moon and

Mercury are soumya planets.

2) Question:

Is it

that Asubha and Papa mean the same or are they diffenet? If yes, how?

Answer (Manoj ji):

This question is not answered by Manoj ji.

Review:

Asubha and Papa mean the same – there is no difference.

3) Question:

What is

the Sanskrit word that you will use for 'functional benefic'?

Answer (Manoj ji):

A functional benefic would be called "tatkalik

shubha"

Review:

The above answer is completely wrong. If we have to translate "tatkalik subha" we

should better translate it as "temporary benefic" and not "functional benefic".

What is it that we mean when we use the words "functional benefic" or "functional

malefics"? If a natural benefic is the lord of 6-8-12 we used to call it "functional malefic" – right?

What is the special term used to call the lords of 6-8-12? Those houses are "Dustanas" (malefic houses) and

the lords of those houses are called "Dusthanadhipa" (lords of malefic houses).

Thus it is better to translate "functional malefic" as "dusthanadhipa" and not `tatkalika

subha". Similarly "functional benefic" is "Susthanadhipa" (lord of benefic

houses).

It is wrong to use the word "tatkalik subha" for one more

reason. What is the definition for the word "tatakalik subha" or "tatkalik mitra"?

If any planet is placed in one house, then the other planets placed near to it

in 2nd, 3rd, 4th house on one side and 12th,

11th, 10th on the other side are the those planets become

temporary relative (one giving beneficial result) to the current planet.

Similarly the planets placed on the other 6 signs opposite to it become (or

considered as) "tatkalik satru" or "tatkalic papa" (temporary malefic).

4) Question

What is

the Sanskrit word that you will use for 'functional malefic'?

Answer (Manoj ji):

a functional benefic would be called "tatkalik

ashubha"

Review:

Due to reasons clarified above, this answer is also wrong. Functional

malefic should be better translated as "Susthanadhipa" and there is no standard

terminology in use such as "tatkalic subha or tatkalic asubha" (check any astrology

text). The terms that are in use are "tatkalik bandhu" (temporary relative) and

"tatkalic satru" (temporary enemy) which

are calculated in an entirely different way (i.e. without considering benefic

or malefic houses or the strength of planets). But if we want to be exact, then the truth is

that there is no exact English translation IN USE for the word "Dusthanadhipa"

(lord of 6-8-12 houses) or Susthanadhipa (lord of houses other than 6-8-12) or the words such as "Tatakalik bandhu" (temporary

relative) or "Tatkalik satru" (temporary

enemy). Similarly there are no exact translation for the English words "functional

benefic" or "functional malefic" in Sanskrit. Language is for communication –

and if we are able to convey the intend that is enough. Whether it is McCauley's

English or ignorant Sanskrit is irrelevant.

// some how the mail was giving out a message that please don't

try to mess with me//

Good that you are sensate enough. The egotic use of the word

"McCauley's English" irritated me so much and my mail was a natural response to

that.

// English does not convey the real meaning of the words.

Essence is when you understand the meaning being conveyed a sentence or a word

in its proper form.//

Yes, there you seem to understand and we agree with each

other.

// You say you wish to "test" my knowledge of

Sanskrit before you start communicating in those words. Its your wish, please

go ahead.//

Testing was not my purpose - but that was a purposeful egotic

statement made by me with an intention. My intention was positive due to the

following reasons –

I

wanted to discuss this subject in detailI

wanted to show you the logical pitfall (related to such assumptions).

// How often have we seen that people do pick up theoretical

knowledge whereas they completely lack the practical knowledge of astrology. If

I remember, I had given particulars of a chart in one of the mails about 3 or 4

days back but am yet to see any stalwart responding to it.//

We are all busy with our own life and it is some part of our

spare time that we all spend here. Don't assume that every one (including me)

here will read every mail or that everyone will waste their time to answer some

chart you posted. For example I never saw that chart or read that mail, or even

if I did, I will not be interested in wasting time for that - if not that is something that specially

interests me. It is not to attend challenges or to satisfy others that I am

present in this forum – but to learn and share knowledge – the little bit I

have, that too only in my spare time. I share some of my knowledge with others

(they can take it or leave it), and I receive and learn from others; I am no

teacher to anyone and don't want to be. I am neither challenger nor receiver –

even the question answers are not challenge responses but only knowledge

sharing sessions. Occasionally when I

feel like participating in blind chart quizzes or chart readings, then I do,

and anyone can check the achieves to verify the same. Me either reaching the

correct conclusions or failing to reach the correct conclusion is also no

wonder – because I am just like you, not with much difference (and NOT a

teacher here, but one friend who would quarrel with you all with a positive

intention and sincerity)

// Soumya and Shubha, Ashubha and Papa. Ashubha grahas need

to be seen in a chart whereas papa are defined as papa in astrological texts.//

Ha..Ha…Manoj ji, stop this confusion – that is enough

trying! J

//And by the way, do you think, this combination of natural

and functional helps, if so, then please show me a case using them, perhaps it

may help in learning it further. //

Of course they are useful in practical astrology and in

understanding the quotes provided in ancient astrological classics correctly.

The clear understanding of these terms helped the authors of those texts much

in codifying those texts using a clear and correct technical terminology. That

itself is their primary purpose and benefit.

//And kindly elucidate on where was I lacking in

understanding the terms.//

I hope I have already did the same.

Note: I know that you are elderly and reputed astrologer – I

have full respect towards you. This is just a friendly discussion that should

become beneficial to all, so please don't let the ego raise.

Love and regards,

Sreenadh

, Manoj Kumar <mouji99 Dear Sreenadh ji,

Yes this mail is pending discussion.

A soumya and shubha are not the same planets. Soumya grahas may or

may not become shubha grahas because it would depend on the horoscope.

A papa can also be a shubha graha. I had not disagreed to your use of

the word but only had said that english language does not necessarily

convey the real meaning at times. * What is the Sanskrit word that you will use for 'functional benefic' that you are using so regularly?

So

regularly. Am I writing so regularly? But if the mail is addressed in

the tenor that it is then a functional benefic would be called

"tatkalik shubha" * What is the Sanskrit word that you will use for 'functional malefic' that you are using so regularly? So

regularly. Am I writing so regularly? But if the mail is addressed in

the tenor that it is then a functional benefic would be called

"tatkalik ashubha"* Similarly what are special Sanskrit words to be used for 'natural benefic' or 'natural malefic'? "Naisargik subha and naisargik papa" * What are the english words for Soumya and Subha? (They are diffent!) What is your defenition for these words? * Is it that Asubha and Papa mean the same or are they diffenet? If yes, how?

Somehow the mail was giving out a message that please dont try to

mess with me whereas the purpose of my writing that mail was something

different. English does not convey the real meaning of the words.

Essence is when you understand the meaning being conveyed a sentence or

a word in its proper form. You say you wish to "test" my knowledge of

Sanskrit before you start communicating in those words. Its your wish,

please go ahead.

How often have we seen that people do pick up theoretical

knowledge whereas they completely lack the practical knowledge of

astrology. If I remember, I had given particulars of a chart in one of

the mails about 3 or 4 days back but am yet to see any stalwart

responding to it.

Soumya and Shubha, Ashubha and Papa. Ashubha grahas need to be

seen in a chart whereas papa are defined as papa in astrological texts.

And by the way, do you think, this combination of natural and

functional helps, if so, then please show me a case using them, perhaps

it may help in learning it further.

And kindly elucidate on where was I lacking in understanding the terms.

regards,

Mouji> --- On Thu, 9/24/09, sreesog sreesog wrote:

Re: Base principles and Schools of astrology