Varga Charts - To Shanmukha ji

October 10, 2009

Dear Shanmukha ji,//> The available Jaimini Sutras, the second pada of first adhyaya

speaks of Karakamsa dealing with Navamsa chart. Of course, there are

some contradicting opinions like using Karakamsa Lagna in Rasi chart

itself.// OK. Let us consider the statements - I know that 2nd pada of first adhyaya of Jaimini sutra speaks about Navamsa. But how can you say that it is NOT about "Navamsa" but about "Navamsa Chart"?! Then even when considering Navamsa you point to the opinion that some (shall I translate it as "Traditional Jaimini astrologers") are of the opinion that - "Even the Karakamsa Navamsas should be counted from Natal Lagna" and NOT from Navamsa Lagna. Yes, that is what me too say - as per traditional view, the every Navamsa should be counted/considered from Natal Lagna only (and NOT from Navamsa lagna and non in irrelevant Navamsa 'chart'). The point is as per traditional view - whether it be Arsha or Jaimini - Navamsa is important and acceptable but NOT the navamsa chart and reading the Navamsas as an independent entity starting from Navamsa lagna. If you think otherwise please prove by providing the relevant quotes that, Jaimini is speaking about "Navamsa Chart" and NOT about "Navamsa" - whether it be Karakamsa or something else. // But, the ancient commentaries definitely speaks of D-Charts.

For example Padanathamsa Dasa exposed in Jyotish Phalaratnamala deals

the dasa in Navamsa chart.//

Again the same question applies - how can you say that - "Jyotish Phalaratnamala deals

the dasa in Navamsa chart". Considering the antiquity of Jyotish Phalaratnamala, it is possible that - "Jyotish Phalaratnamala deals

the dasa in Navamsa" (Not only Jyotish Navaratnamala, even Brihat Jataka speaks about Navamsa dasa) - but please prove by quoting the relevant quotes that Krishna Mishra is speaking about "Navamsa Chart" starting from Navamsa Lagna itself and NOT simply about "Navamsa". It would be much educative and informative. Even though Jaimini astrology is outside the traditional Arsha school of astrology, even for this system it is impossible to deviate from the fundamentals at the early age of 10th century AD I believe. But there is one more cute info that we can remember - most possibly the whole absurdity current use of D-Charts sprung from Andhra Pradesh itself, evident from the fact that it is AP astrology that is popular in North India now a days. For example - * Current BPHS interpolated with Jaimini quotes - and the popularity of BPHS in North India * AP origin of Jaimini Sutra - and the popularity of Jaimini sutra in North India For this we can assume that the possible origin of current use of absurd D-charts must also have sprung from AP itself. A wild guess - may or may not be true. More data and study is required to confirm or negate this assumption. But the point is your current statements are not enough to show that Jaimini system support the use of D-charts. Ofcourse just like traditional indian astrology Jimini system does support the use of Divisions (Amsas), but most possibly NOT D-charts. Please provide more evidence, if you think otherwise. Love and regards,Sreenadh , "teli_sha2002" <teli_sha2002 wrote:>> Shri Ganeshaya Namah> > Dear Sreenath Ji,> > //Wrong! Not even a single quote present in any of them that speak about D-Charts! Of course they speak about divisions (amsas), the subdivision of sign. But NONE OF THEM speak about considering all signs and all planets and eructing a D-chart! //> > Why not Sreenath Ji? Though I haven't been following the thread, but your statement above is surprising.> > The available Jaimini Sutras, the second pada of first adhyaya speaks of Karakamsa dealing with Navamsa chart. Of course, there are some contradicting opinions like using Karakamsa Lagna in Rasi chart itself. But, the ancient commentaries definitely speaks of D-Charts. For example Padanathamsa Dasa exposed in Jyotish Phalaratnamala deals the dasa in Navamsa chart. > > Yes, the ancients might not use as frequently as we the D-Charts, but stating they never speak of D-Charts may not be correct.> > Regards,> Shanmukha

October 10, 2009

Shri Ganeshaya Namah

Dear Sreenath Ji,

I can't answer to aasumptions, for they are simple assumptions. Hhhhh...

//Then even when considering Navamsa you point to the opinion that some (shall I translate it as "Traditional Jaimini astrologers") are of the opinion that - "Even the Karakamsa Navamsas should be counted from Natal Lagna" and NOT from Navamsa Lagna. Yes, that is what me too say - as per traditional view, the every Navamsa should be counted/considered from Natal Lagna only (and NOT from Navamsa lagna and non in irrelevant Navamsa 'chart'). The point is as per traditional view - whether it be Arsha or Jaimini - Navamsa is important and acceptable but NOT the navamsa chart and reading the Navamsas as an independent entity starting from Navamsa lagna. If you think otherwise please prove by providing the relevant quotes that, Jaimini is speaking about "Navamsa Chart" and NOT about "Navamsa" - whether it be Karakamsa or something else.//

Wrong. By the word Karakamsa I meant, the Navamsa sign occupied by Atmakaraka in Navamsa chart. And hence, your way of counting Karakamsas from Natal Lagna is wrong. I meant that some scholars like Sri K.N.Rao take the sign occupied by AK in Navamsa chart and take that sign as Karakamsa Lagna in Rasi Chart. For example, if natal lagna is Virgo and AK occupies Aquarius Navamsa, then so Sri K.N.Rao takes Aquarius as Karakamsa lagna in Natal Rasi Chart and predict using that. Yet, some scholars like my Guru, Sri B.V.Raman, Sri Madhura Krishna Murthi etc. take Aquarius as Karakamsa Lagna in Navamsa Chart itself.

As I wrote earlier, the 2nd Pada of First Chapter is about Karakamsa diagram, which is essentially Navamsa Chart with Lagna is markes as the sign occupied by AK. All the sutras deal with houses from KL only.

For example, Sutra 1.2.60 says "Laabhe Chandra Gurubhyaam Sundari" indicate the result of Moon and Jup in 7th house (Laabhha = 7th house). Yes, you can argue that Laabha mean the Libra as well. That's upto you.

For exmaple 1.2.67 "karmaNi paape sUraH" indicate the malefics in 3rd (karma) indicate the person a brave man. Again you may argue that Karma mean Gemini, yet it will be apparent that malefics in 3rd leading Brave is according to classical dictum, not malefics in Gemini. All the sutras in 2nd chapter deals the houses, not Rasis.

Yes, Jaimini Sutras are cryptic and may give a number of diffrent meaning if intrepreted in a different context.

Again the same question applies - how can you say that - "Jyotish Phalaratnamala deals the dasa in Navamsa chart". Considering the antiquity of Jyotish Phalaratnamala, it is possible that - "Jyotish Phalaratnamala deals the dasa in Navamsa" (Not only Jyotish Navaratnamala, even Brihat Jataka speaks about Navamsa dasa) - but please prove by quoting the relevant quotes that Krishna Mishra is speaking about "Navamsa Chart" starting from Navamsa Lagna itself and NOT simply about "Navamsa".

I can say that Jyotish Phalaratnamala deals with Dasa in Navamsa chart from my teaching of Guru and his book "Jaimini Sutramritam". The concerned sutra of this dasa can be found at 2.1.29 of Jaimini Sutras. By the way it doesn't start with Navamsa lagna, but from sign occupied in Navamsa chart by Lord of Arudha Lagna of Rasi chart.

Even though Jaimini astrology is outside the traditional Arsha school of astrology, even for this system it is impossible to deviate from the fundamentals at the early age of 10th century AD I believe.

Could you provide me the source of your opinion / assumption about Jaimini System being outside of the traditional Arsha school of Astrology? Is it becuase Jaimini System has new parameters or you find Jaimini has different significations for houses and planets etc. IMHO, it is part of Arsha for its basic signification are same and only the view point changes and Sage Jaimini introduces new parameters and tools but keeping in line with Basics canons of Astrology. Did you read Varahamihira Hora Sastram By Iyengar who is beleived to decode and interpret some of the slokas of Brihat Jataka in the light of Jaimini way of mentioning Bhavas (Katapayaadi)? I confess I haven't read it

But there is one more cute info that we can remember - most possibly the whole absurdity current use of D-Charts sprung from Andhra Pradesh itself, evident from the fact that it is AP astrology that is popular in North India now a days.

For example -

* Current BPHS interpolated with Jaimini quotes - and the popularity of BPHS in North India

* AP origin of Jaimini Sutra - and the popularity of Jaimini sutra in North India

For this we can assume that the possible origin of current use of absurd D-charts must also have sprung from AP itself. [;] A wild guess - may or may not be true. [] More data and study is required to confirm or negate this assumption.

I dont comment whether it is absurd or not to use D-Chart as I leave it to you form an opinion. A few points below.

Do you mean that Jaimini Astrology initiated / propagated D-Charts?

How can you say that Jaimini Sutras originated in AP. Any reference for your statement helps me a lot in my studies?

I dont think that the popularity of Jaimini in North India or AP doesn't suffice to prove that Jaimini system initiated D-Charts etc. Don't generalize Sree. The current knowledge of Jaimini system is neither belongs to A.P or North India or Kerala. It is a branch of Astrology thats it. People may brand it as AP Astrology or Kerala Astrology, but not scholars like you. As this Jaimini tradition was lost in time, so we can't know the origin. Dont you remember that Sri B.V.Raman was introduced Jaimini System by a scholar from Kerala? Most scholars in AP over last centuries learnt classical subjects including Astrology in Varanasi. I hope you know the importance of Varanasi for traditional learning in the indian history.

Yes, more data is needed to prove or negate your assumptions.

But the point is your current statements are not enough to show that Jaimini system support the use of D-charts. Ofcourse just like traditional indian astrology Jimini system does support the use of Divisions (Amsas), but most possibly NOT D-charts. Please provide more evidence, if you think otherwise.

I have provided some evidence like houses from Karakamsa etc in this mail itself. So, I think it may be enough. I have somemore evidences like support for Dwadasamsa and Drekkana Charts. Of course, your argument is tenable, if I ponder over it. So, Let me do that first.

Regards,

Shanmukha

you wrote , "sreesog" <sreesog wrote:>> Dear Shanmukha ji,> //> The available Jaimini Sutras, the second pada of first adhyaya> speaks of Karakamsa dealing with Navamsa chart. Of course, there are> some contradicting opinions like using Karakamsa Lagna in Rasi chart> itself.//> OK. Let us consider the statements -> I know that 2nd pada of first adhyaya of Jaimini sutra speaks about> Navamsa. But how can you say that it is NOT about "Navamsa" but about> "Navamsa Chart"?! Then even when considering Navamsa you point to the> opinion that some (shall I translate it as "Traditional Jaimini> astrologers") are of the opinion that - "Even the Karakamsa Navamsas> should be counted from Natal Lagna" and NOT from Navamsa Lagna. Yes,> that is what me too say - as per traditional view, the every Navamsa> should be counted/considered from Natal Lagna only (and NOT from Navamsa> lagna and non in irrelevant Navamsa 'chart'). The point is as per> traditional view - whether it be Arsha or Jaimini - Navamsa is important> and acceptable but NOT the navamsa chart and reading the Navamsas as an> independent entity starting from Navamsa lagna. If you think otherwise> please prove by providing the relevant quotes that, Jaimini is speaking> about "Navamsa Chart" and NOT about "Navamsa" - whether it be Karakamsa> or something else.> // But, the ancient commentaries definitely speaks of D-Charts. For> example Padanathamsa Dasa exposed in Jyotish Phalaratnamala deals the> dasa in Navamsa chart.//> Again the same question applies - how can you say that - "Jyotish> Phalaratnamala deals the dasa in Navamsa chart". Considering the> antiquity of Jyotish Phalaratnamala, it is possible that - "Jyotish> Phalaratnamala deals the dasa in Navamsa" (Not only Jyotish> Navaratnamala, even Brihat Jataka speaks about Navamsa dasa) - but> please prove by quoting the relevant quotes that Krishna Mishra is> speaking about "Navamsa Chart" starting from Navamsa Lagna itself and> NOT simply about "Navamsa". It would be much educative and informative.> Even though Jaimini astrology is outside the traditional Arsha school> of astrology, even for this system it is impossible to deviate from the> fundamentals at the early age of 10th century AD I believe.> But there is one more cute info that we can remember - most possibly> the whole absurdity current use of D-Charts sprung from Andhra Pradesh> itself, evident from the fact that it is AP astrology that is popular in> North India now a days. For example -> * Current BPHS interpolated with Jaimini quotes - and the popularity> of BPHS in North India> * AP origin of Jaimini Sutra - and the popularity of Jaimini sutra in> North India> For this we can assume that the possible origin of current use of> absurd D-charts must also have sprung from AP itself. [;] A wild> guess - may or may not be true. [] More data and study is required> to confirm or negate this assumption.> But the point is your current statements are not enough to show that> Jaimini system support the use of D-charts. Ofcourse just like> traditional indian astrology Jimini system does support the use of> Divisions (Amsas), but most possibly NOT D-charts. Please provide more> evidence, if you think otherwise.> Love and regards,> Sreenadh> > , "teli_sha2002"> teli_sha2002@ wrote:> >> > Shri Ganeshaya Namah> >> > Dear Sreenath Ji,> >> > //Wrong! Not even a single quote present in any of them that speak> about D-Charts! Of course they speak about divisions (amsas), the> subdivision of sign. But NONE OF THEM speak about considering all signs> and all planets and eructing a D-chart! //> >> > Why not Sreenath Ji? Though I haven't been following the thread, but> your statement above is surprising.> >> > The available Jaimini Sutras, the second pada of first adhyaya speaks> of Karakamsa dealing with Navamsa chart. Of course, there are some> contradicting opinions like using Karakamsa Lagna in Rasi chart itself.> But, the ancient commentaries definitely speaks of D-Charts. For example> Padanathamsa Dasa exposed in Jyotish Phalaratnamala deals the dasa in> Navamsa chart.> >> > Yes, the ancients might not use as frequently as we the D-Charts, but> stating they never speak of D-Charts may not be correct.> >> > Regards,> > Shanmukha>

October 11, 2009

Dear Shanmukha ji, I would like to answer your mail in detail taking time - possibly tomarrow. Love and regards,Sreenadh , "teli_sha2002" <teli_sha2002 wrote:>> > Shri Ganeshaya Namah> > Dear Sreenath Ji,> > I can't answer to aasumptions, for they are simple assumptions. [] > Hhhhh...> > //Then even when considering Navamsa you point to the opinion that some> (shall I translate it as "Traditional Jaimini astrologers") are of the> opinion that - "Even the Karakamsa Navamsas should be counted from Natal> Lagna" and NOT from Navamsa Lagna. Yes, that is what me too say - as per> traditional view, the every Navamsa should be counted/considered from> Natal Lagna only (and NOT from Navamsa lagna and non in irrelevant> Navamsa 'chart'). The point is as per traditional view - whether it be> Arsha or Jaimini - Navamsa is important and acceptable but NOT the> navamsa chart and reading the Navamsas as an independent entity starting> from Navamsa lagna. If you think otherwise please prove by providing the> relevant quotes that, Jaimini is speaking about "Navamsa Chart" and NOT> about "Navamsa" - whether it be Karakamsa or something else.//> > Wrong. By the word Karakamsa I meant, the Navamsa sign occupied by> Atmakaraka in Navamsa chart. And hence, your way of counting Karakamsas> from Natal Lagna is wrong. I meant that some scholars like Sri K.N.Rao> take the sign occupied by AK in Navamsa chart and take that sign as> Karakamsa Lagna in Rasi Chart. For example, if natal lagna is Virgo and> AK occupies Aquarius Navamsa, then so Sri K.N.Rao takes Aquarius as> Karakamsa lagna in Natal Rasi Chart and predict using that. Yet, some> scholars like my Guru, Sri B.V.Raman, Sri Madhura Krishna Murthi etc.> take Aquarius as Karakamsa Lagna in Navamsa Chart itself.> > As I wrote earlier, the 2nd Pada of First Chapter is about Karakamsa> diagram, which is essentially Navamsa Chart with Lagna is markes as the> sign occupied by AK. All the sutras deal with houses from KL only.> > For example, Sutra 1.2.60 says "Laabhe Chandra Gurubhyaam Sundari"> indicate the result of Moon and Jup in 7th house (Laabhha = 7th house).> Yes, you can argue that Laabha mean the Libra as well. That's upto you.> > For exmaple 1.2.67 "karmaNi paape sUraH" indicate the malefics in 3rd> (karma) indicate the person a brave man. Again you may argue that Karma> mean Gemini, yet it will be apparent that malefics in 3rd leading Brave> is according to classical dictum, not malefics in Gemini. All the sutras> in 2nd chapter deals the houses, not Rasis.> > Yes, Jaimini Sutras are cryptic and may give a number of diffrent> meaning if intrepreted in a different context.> > Again the same question applies - how can you say that - "Jyotish> Phalaratnamala deals the dasa in Navamsa chart". Considering the> antiquity of Jyotish Phalaratnamala, it is possible that - "Jyotish> Phalaratnamala deals the dasa in Navamsa" (Not only Jyotish> Navaratnamala, even Brihat Jataka speaks about Navamsa dasa) - but> please prove by quoting the relevant quotes that Krishna Mishra is> speaking about "Navamsa Chart" starting from Navamsa Lagna itself and> NOT simply about "Navamsa".> > I can say that Jyotish Phalaratnamala deals with Dasa in Navamsa chart> from my teaching of Guru and his book "Jaimini Sutramritam". The> concerned sutra of this dasa can be found at 2.1.29 of Jaimini Sutras.> By the way it doesn't start with Navamsa lagna, but from sign occupied> in Navamsa chart by Lord of Arudha Lagna of Rasi chart.> > Even though Jaimini astrology is outside the traditional Arsha school of> astrology, even for this system it is impossible to deviate from the> fundamentals at the early age of 10th century AD I believe.> > > Could you provide me the source of your opinion / assumption about> Jaimini System being outside of the traditional Arsha school of> Astrology? Is it becuase Jaimini System has new parameters or you find> Jaimini has different significations for houses and planets etc. IMHO,> it is part of Arsha for its basic signification are same and only the> view point changes and Sage Jaimini introduces new parameters and tools> but keeping in line with Basics canons of Astrology. Did you read> Varahamihira Hora Sastram By Iyengar who is beleived to decode and> interpret some of the slokas of Brihat Jataka in the light of Jaimini> way of mentioning Bhavas (Katapayaadi)? I confess I haven't read it> > But there is one more cute info that we can remember - most possibly> the whole absurdity current use of D-Charts sprung from Andhra Pradesh> itself, evident from the fact that it is AP astrology that is popular in> North India now a days.> > For example -> > * Current BPHS interpolated with Jaimini quotes - and the popularity of> BPHS in North India> > * AP origin of Jaimini Sutra - and the popularity of Jaimini sutra in> North India> > For this we can assume that the possible origin of current use of absurd> D-charts must also have sprung from AP itself. [;] A wild guess - may> or may not be true. [] More data and study is required to confirm or> negate this assumption.> > I dont comment whether it is absurd or not to use D-Chart as I leave it> to you form an opinion. A few points below.> > Do you mean that Jaimini Astrology initiated / propagated D-Charts?> > How can you say that Jaimini Sutras originated in AP. Any reference for> your statement helps me a lot in my studies?> > I dont think that the popularity of Jaimini in North India or AP doesn't> suffice to prove that Jaimini system initiated D-Charts etc. Don't> generalize Sree. The current knowledge of Jaimini system is neither> belongs to A.P or North India or Kerala. It is a branch of Astrology> thats it. People may brand it as AP Astrology or Kerala Astrology, but> not scholars like you. As this Jaimini tradition was lost in time, so we> can't know the origin. Dont you remember that Sri B.V.Raman was> introduced Jaimini System by a scholar from Kerala? Most scholars in AP> over last centuries learnt classical subjects including Astrology in> Varanasi. I hope you know the importance of Varanasi for traditional> learning in the indian history.> > Yes, more data is needed to prove or negate your assumptions.> > > But the point is your current statements are not enough to show that> Jaimini system support the use of D-charts. Ofcourse just like> traditional indian astrology Jimini system does support the use of> Divisions (Amsas), but most possibly NOT D-charts. Please provide more> evidence, if you think otherwise.> > I have provided some evidence like houses from Karakamsa etc in this> mail itself. So, I think it may be enough. I have somemore evidences> like support for Dwadasamsa and Drekkana Charts. Of course, your> argument is tenable, if I ponder over it. So, Let me do that first.> > Regards,> > Shanmukha

October 14, 2009

Dear Shanmukha ji, Let us continue this conversation. First let me tell you that "Jaimini astrology is as alian to me like a the distant Moon". I know near to nothing about the intricacies of Jaimni system. If I want have a glimpse of it, I will have to learn it from Jaimni scholars like you. Therefore, any comment I make would be based on my genearal understanding about astrology only and not specifically based on Jaimni system. So pardon me if I skips in technicalities here and there. Yes, you could right that what I am made were "assumptions" - what else can I do when I am commenting on something like "jaimni system" which so alian to me?! You are a Jaimni scholar and you would better know. But my comments might have a value, since they come from good general understanding; especially about the common foundations. //By the word Karakamsa I meant, the

Navamsa sign occupied by Atmakaraka in Navamsa chart. And hence, your

way of counting Karakamsas from Natal Lagna is wrong. I meant that some

scholars like Sri K.N.Rao take the sign occupied by AK in Navamsa chart

and take that sign as Karakamsa Lagna in Rasi Chart. For example, if

natal lagna is Virgo and AK occupies Aquarius Navamsa, then so Sri

K.N.Rao takes Aquarius as Karakamsa lagna in Natal Rasi Chart and

predict using that. Yet, some scholars like my Guru, Sri B.V.Raman, Sri

Madhura Krishna Murthi etc. take Aquarius as Karakamsa Lagna in Navamsa

Chart itself.

As I wrote earlier, the 2nd Pada of First

Chapter is about Karakamsa diagram, which is essentially Navamsa Chart

with Lagna is markes as the sign occupied by AK. All the sutras deal

with houses from KL only.// Oh - Those intricacies will not go into my head. What I could generally grasp from your words is that, there are 2 opinions - * One opinion is that, "some

scholars like Sri K.N.Rao take the sign occupied by AK in Navamsa chart

and take that sign as Karakamsa Lagna in Rasi Chart" * Another opinion is that, "some scholars like my Guru, Sri B.V.Raman, Sri

Madhura Krishna Murthi etc. take Aquarius as Karakamsa Lagna in Navamsa

Chart itself"

Of these first is nothing but the system of considering the NavamsaKa sign in Natal chart itself (by super imposing Rasi and Navamsa charts). This system is well popular and no deviation from traditional style. (I know nothing about Karakamsa, but just speaking about the methodology) ; The second style I haven't seen anywhere used by the traditionalists - no, no where in traditional astrology. So I guess, possibly the first should be correct. ( I am just guessing like an intelligent student who does not know the answer only). What do your guru say? Iringati Rangacharya is a well known traditonal scholar in Jaimini system - better we should accept his opinion, what ever it be. So - what does he say? Is he with the first opinion or the second? //I can say that Jyotish Phalaratnamala deals

with Dasa in Navamsa chart from my teaching of Guru and his book

"Jaimini Sutramritam". The concerned sutra of this dasa can be found at

2.1.29 of Jaimini Sutras. By the way it doesn't start with Navamsa

lagna, but from sign occupied in Navamsa chart by Lord of Arudha Lagna

of Rasi chart.// Here also I couldn't grasp the intricacies. But it seems that - Here again it is the system of considering the NavamsaKA sign in Rasi chart - possibly no deviation from the Arsha traditional style. (If I am wrong here - please pardon; this system is alian to me)//Could you provide me the source of your

opinion / assumption about Jaimini System being outside of the

traditional Arsha school of Astrology? Is it becuase Jaimini System has

new parameters or you find Jaimini has different significations for

houses and planets etc. IMHO, it is part of Arsha for its basic

signification are same and only the view point changes and Sage Jaimini

introduces new parameters and tools but keeping in line with Basics

canons of Astrology. // There are 3 schools of astrology which have much in common - Arsha, Jain and Yavana. I will list the acharyas of each to have an idea. 1) Arsha - Skanda, Daksha, Vasishta, Kousika, Sounaka etc (Numerous quotes from their books are availabe) 2) Jain - Garga, Vriddha Garga, Gargi, Rishiputra etc 3) Yavana - Yavaneswara, Spujidhwaja, Meenaraja, Srutakeerti, Haraji etc These 3 systems have much in common while their approach to astrology is concerned. But the approach provided by Parasara is bit different; and much more different is the one provided by Jaimni. Ofcourse the same is true about many Nadi systems, Tajiki, Lal Kitab etc as well. Ofcourse all these systems are all part of Ancient Indian Astrological tradition. But for the sake of convenience related to identification and learning, it is better to call these schools separately with different names. That is how I called the system of astrology dealt with in texts like Skanda hora, Brihat prajapatya, Vasishta Hora, Kousika Hora etc upto Brihat Jataka as Arsha School of astrology. Just a useful terminology for classification - nothing else. Ofcourse, in the meaning, "told by sage", Jaimini system is also an "Arsha" (Told by Rishi) system; but it was not in that sense I was using that word. I was using it as part of a classification for convenience. I was saying that the astrological system of approach dealt with in Jainimini Sutra is much different from the approach followed by the texts like Skanda Hora, Brihat prajapatya, Sounaka hora, Kousika hora etc etc even upto Brihat Jataka of Mihira. You asks - //Did you read Varahamihira Hora Sastram By Iyengar

who is beleived to decode and interpret some of the slokas of Brihat

Jataka in the light of Jaimini way of mentioning Bhavas (Katapayaadi)?

I confess I haven't read it// No, I am yet to come accross this commentry of Iyengar. I would love to have it - can you provide me with more details about Iyengar's book? //Do you mean that Jaimini Astrology initiated / propagated D-Charts?// Could be. There is a possibility. I am not sure.//How can you say that Jaimini Sutras originated in AP. Any reference for your statement helps me a lot in my studies?// Because the first text dealing with Jaimni system originated in AP during 11th century. After that only scholars in other places started writing about this system. The sytem got propagated to the whole of India mostly through the sholars of AP and Orissa origin, this too points to the possible AP origin of Jaimini system. The Vikramaditya story also confirms this, since part of AP was under the rule of Chalukya Vikramaditya during 11th century Krishna Mishra period. Such scattered information, when considered together seems to point to the fact that possibly this system originated in AP itself - that too around 10th/11th century (it could be a bit earlier as well). //I dont think that the popularity of Jaimini in

North India or AP doesn't suffice to prove that Jaimini system

initiated D-Charts etc. Don't generalize Sree. The current knowledge of

Jaimini system is neither belongs to A.P or North India or Kerala. It

is a branch of Astrology thats it. People may brand it as AP Astrology

or Kerala Astrology, but not scholars like you. As this Jaimini

tradition was lost in time, so we can't know the origin. Dont you

remember that Sri B.V.Raman was introduced Jaimini System by a scholar

from Kerala? Most scholars in AP over last centuries learnt classical

subjects including Astrology in Varanasi. I hope you know the

importance of Varanasi for traditional learning in the indian history. Yes, more data is needed to prove or negate your assumptions.// Thanks for your valuable observations - I agree with you.

//I have provided some evidence like houses from

Karakamsa etc in this mail itself. So, I think it may be enough. I have

some more evidences like support for Dwadasamsa and Drekkana Charts. Of

course, your argument is tenable, if I ponder over it. So, Let me do

that first.// Thanks. Please provide it along with your observation (because my Jaimini IQ is good enough to draw conclusions from the info you provide - even if I wish to) . My main question would be (from the general perspective) - are those quotes dealing with Drekkana, Dwadasamsa etc actually deal with the Amsa itself OR "the sign in which the amsa falls - i.e. AmsaKA"? If it is AmsaKA and then the signs/planetary-position there of in Natal chart, then it is no deviation from the Arsha/Jain/Yavana style; otherwise it is. Here to learn from you more on this and learn from the info you provide. Love and regards,Sreenadh , "teli_sha2002" <teli_sha2002 wrote:Shri Ganeshaya Namah

Dear Sreenath Ji,

I can't answer to aasumptions, for they are simple assumptions. Hhhhh...

//Then even when considering Navamsa you point

to the opinion that some (shall I translate it as "Traditional Jaimini

astrologers") are of the opinion that - "Even the Karakamsa Navamsas

should be counted from Natal Lagna" and NOT from Navamsa Lagna. Yes,

that is what me too say - as per traditional view, the every Navamsa

should be counted/considered from Natal Lagna only (and NOT from

Navamsa lagna and non in irrelevant Navamsa 'chart'). The point is as

per traditional view - whether it be Arsha or Jaimini - Navamsa is

important and acceptable but NOT the navamsa chart and reading the

Navamsas as an independent entity starting from Navamsa lagna. If you

think otherwise please prove by providing the relevant quotes that,

Jaimini is speaking about "Navamsa Chart" and NOT about "Navamsa" -

whether it be Karakamsa or something else.//

Wrong. By the word Karakamsa I meant, the