Guest guest Posted October 21, 2009 Report Share Posted October 21, 2009 Dear All, The following is an old message posted on vedic astrology group on Sat Jan 21, 2006 7:59 pm. Love and regards, Sreenadh vedic astrology , " Sreenadh " <sreelid wrote: Dear Raji, As per ancient astrology there is nothing called Bhava chalit. Important point to know " Rasi and Bhava are he same " . They differ only in the sense that Rasi is counted from Aris, while Bhava is counted from Asc, that is all to it. All astrologers up to the period of Mihira and Kalyanavarma clearly knew this, and even Krishneeyam and Hora Rathnam states the same!! The mistake of considering Bhava as a separate entity from Rasi originated only with Sripathy of 10th century, as far as my knowledge goes. I would say that he is one of the persons who corrupted astrology by bringing-in concepts like, 1) Bhava as a separate entity from Rasi 2) Gochara-Vedha system etc. Many may not agree with this opinion, I know. But I would humbly ask them to produce evidence supporting there stand. Love, Sreenadh vedic astrology , " raji1153 " <raji1153> wrote: > > Dear group, > > I have a very basic query. What gains precendece, lagna chart or bhav > chalit? > > If a native has Mars in the seventh in the lagna chart but in Bhav > chalit this moves to the sixth, do we conclude that he is a mangalik > or a non-mangalik? > > Thanks, > Raji. > --- End forwarded message --- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 21, 2009 Report Share Posted October 21, 2009 Dear Sreenadh, I am sorry to differ with you. Don't take " what is old is gold. " In the field of knowledge, research and observation is only criteria of progress. I am sorry to write that in good olden days it was considered that the Earth is stationary and Sun is revolving round the Earth, but we have changed the concept. Earth is revolving round the Sun. Similarly it was considered that the bhava and sign are of equal longitude, but time proved that the sign and bhava are of unequal longitude. The whole Western astrology accepted the concept of unequal longitude in astronomy and astrology. What is the harm in accepting the truth and create bhava chalit chart in astrology. Should we lock our knowledge up to Varahmihir or Kalyan verma? So to say that Sripati corrupt the astrology is not acceptable. Rather we should research and observe in the present day astrology how far he was correct? --- On Wed, 10/21/09, sreesog <sreesog wrote: > sreesog <sreesog > Fwd: Re: Importance of Bhav chalit > > Wednesday, October 21, 2009, 10:28 AM > Dear All, > The following is an old message posted on > vedic astrology group on Sat Jan 21, 2006 7:59 pm. > Love and regards, > Sreenadh > > vedic astrology , > " Sreenadh " <sreelid wrote: > > Dear Raji, > As per ancient astrology there is nothing called Bhava > chalit. > Important point to know " Rasi and Bhava are he same " . > They differ only in the sense that Rasi is counted from > Aris, while > Bhava is counted from Asc, that is all to it. All > astrologers up to > the period of Mihira and Kalyanavarma clearly knew this, > and even > Krishneeyam and Hora Rathnam states the same!! > The mistake of considering Bhava as a separate entity from > Rasi > originated only with Sripathy of 10th century, as far as my > knowledge > goes. I would say that he is one of the persons who > corrupted > astrology by bringing-in concepts like, > 1) Bhava as a separate entity from Rasi > 2) Gochara-Vedha system etc. > Many may not agree with this opinion, I know. But I would > humbly ask > them to produce evidence supporting there stand. > Love, > Sreenadh > > > vedic astrology , > " raji1153 " <raji1153> > wrote: > > > > Dear group, > > > > I have a very basic query. What gains precendece, > lagna chart or > bhav > > chalit? > > > > If a native has Mars in the seventh in the lagna chart > but in Bhav > > chalit this moves to the sixth, do we conclude that he > is a mangalik > > or a non-mangalik? > > > > Thanks, > > Raji. > > > > --- End forwarded message --- > > > > > --- > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 21, 2009 Report Share Posted October 21, 2009 Dear Kursujia ji, //The whole Western astrology accepted the concept of unequal longitude in astronomy and astrology. What is the harm in accepting the truth and create bhava chalit chart in astrology. // First, We are doing Indian astrology and not western astrology. Second, As message #26882 from Vijay Goel ji points out, treating signs itself as house is the system supported by all ancient classics, and also by many well known astro scholars. This is the method majority of scholars agree upon. Even the people who are against this system agree that even Parasara and Mihira used this system and none other. Ofcourse using Bhava chalit on an experimental basis is OK even in this group, since it is supported by many astro scholars starting from Sripati of 10th century. It is all individual preference - some may prefer to use it some may not. But as a group in favor of " ANCIENT " this group prefers to go by what the sages taught than the ahcaryas. It is said that when there is conflict of opinion between Sruti (Veda) and smriti (Neetisastra) then Sruti is preferred because it got REVEALED to the the vedic sages; the are the original DRASTA (visionaries/viewers) of this system/knowledge. In the same way when there is a conflict of opinion between the Sages (Sage told; Rishi Prokta) and Acharya (Acharya Prokta, Teacher told), the Rishi prokta (Sage told) is preferred because it got REVEALED to the sages. Rishis saw it, visualized it, had original first hand interaction with it, they are the Drashtas (visionaries/viewers), they are the ones with pure intuition to come in direct contact with the truth. This is not true for teachers (achartyas) and therefore their words are of only secondary importance. In an Agama sastra like astrology we are supposed to follow the path told by the sages. Even mihira stats " Astrology is an Agama sastra, how can I speak/go against the words of the sages - I too will follow and appreciate them " . Even Rig veda states - " (In Nigama/Vedic sastras) it is always preferable to follow the path shown by the sages, then we will not have to worry that we have erred in our path " Hope you will agree with me. But if you want to discard the value of ancient knowledge, and against the advice of both Agama and Nigama sastras (both Vedic and traditional astrological advice) then it is upto you - a personal choice/opinion. I am not against that as well - BUT for sure I don't prefer that; and would prefer to follow the Agama patha while learning a subject like astrology. Love and regards, Sreenadh , " S.C. Kursija " <sckursija wrote: > > Dear Sreenadh, > I am sorry to differ with you. Don't take " what is old is gold. " In the field of knowledge, research and observation is only criteria of progress. I am sorry to write that in good olden days it was considered that the Earth is stationary and Sun is revolving round the Earth, but we have changed the concept. Earth is revolving round the Sun. Similarly it was considered that the bhava and sign are of equal longitude, but time proved that the sign and bhava are of unequal longitude. The whole Western astrology accepted the concept of unequal longitude in astronomy and astrology. What is the harm in accepting the truth and create bhava chalit chart in astrology. Should we lock our knowledge up to Varahmihir or Kalyan verma? So to say that Sripati corrupt the astrology is not acceptable. Rather we should research and observe in the present day astrology how far he was correct? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 21, 2009 Report Share Posted October 21, 2009 Dear Sreenadh ji, because our ancients did not use calculator and did calculations by other means, does not mean that we must continue doing so. This does not make sense. Parashari Bhav Chalit I doubt more than 2 members on all these jyotish groups collectively would be able to judge, because it is the finest system of prognositaction in the world, and beats every other system. Unfortunately there are very few to teach us how to read from this chart, does not mean that I will call the dance floor not in shape just because I have not learnt how to trot. Another point, we are doing a great disservice to the ancient astrologers who have given us this heritage which makes us today well known in our circle, brings in reputation and also money to pros like myself, if we are going to continue disreputing the old astrologers igf a bygone era, like the term used in the mail for " Shripathi " then dont you agree therew ould be no diffference between AKK and those who indulge in such disrepute ? What is ancient no one can define. The Babri Masjid faithful say that there was a masjid here a thousand years ago, but the Ram Lalla faithful will say that 2000 years and beyond this there was a temple of Ram here. We cannot define what is ancient or not, who is good or not, we can only agree or disagree biut cannot call anyone from our great culture as having corrupted astrology. Love and regards,Bhaskar. , " sreesog " <sreesog wrote: > > Dear Kursujia ji, > //The whole Western astrology accepted the concept of unequal longitude in astronomy and astrology. What is the harm in accepting the truth and create bhava chalit chart in astrology. // > First, We are doing Indian astrology and not western astrology. > Second, As message #26882 from Vijay Goel ji points out, treating signs itself as house is the system supported by all ancient classics, and also by many well known astro scholars. This is the method majority of scholars agree upon. Even the people who are against this system agree that even Parasara and Mihira used this system and none other. > Ofcourse using Bhava chalit on an experimental basis is OK even in this group, since it is supported by many astro scholars starting from Sripati of 10th century. It is all individual preference - some may prefer to use it some may not. But as a group in favor of " ANCIENT " this group prefers to go by what the sages taught than the ahcaryas. > It is said that when there is conflict of opinion between Sruti (Veda) and smriti (Neetisastra) then Sruti is preferred because it got REVEALED to the the vedic sages; the are the original DRASTA (visionaries/viewers) of this system/knowledge. > In the same way when there is a conflict of opinion between the Sages (Sage told; Rishi Prokta) and Acharya (Acharya Prokta, Teacher told), the Rishi prokta (Sage told) is preferred because it got REVEALED to the sages. Rishis saw it, visualized it, had original first hand interaction with it, they are the Drashtas (visionaries/viewers), they are the ones with pure intuition to come in direct contact with the truth. This is not true for teachers (achartyas) and therefore their words are of only secondary importance. > In an Agama sastra like astrology we are supposed to follow the path told by the sages. Even mihira stats " Astrology is an Agama sastra, how can I speak/go against the words of the sages - I too will follow and appreciate them " . Even Rig veda states - " (In Nigama/Vedic sastras) it is always preferable to follow the path shown by the sages, then we will not have to worry that we have erred in our path " > Hope you will agree with me. But if you want to discard the value of ancient knowledge, and against the advice of both Agama and Nigama sastras (both Vedic and traditional astrological advice) then it is upto you - a personal choice/opinion. I am not against that as well - BUT for sure I don't prefer that; and would prefer to follow the Agama patha while learning a subject like astrology. > Love and regards, > Sreenadh > > , " S.C. Kursija " sckursija@ wrote: > > > > Dear Sreenadh, > > I am sorry to differ with you. Don't take " what is old is gold. " In the field of knowledge, research and observation is only criteria of progress. I am sorry to write that in good olden days it was considered that the Earth is stationary and Sun is revolving round the Earth, but we have changed the concept. Earth is revolving round the Sun. Similarly it was considered that the bhava and sign are of equal longitude, but time proved that the sign and bhava are of unequal longitude. The whole Western astrology accepted the concept of unequal longitude in astronomy and astrology. What is the harm in accepting the truth and create bhava chalit chart in astrology. Should we lock our knowledge up to Varahmihir or Kalyan verma? So to say that Sripati corrupt the astrology is not acceptable. Rather we should research and observe in the present day astrology how far he was correct? > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 21, 2009 Report Share Posted October 21, 2009 Dear Kursija ji, Going one step forward (boldly) it can be remembered that - as per Mihira, " Jytisham agama sastram, na vipratipattir yogyam asmakam " [Astrology is an ancient Agama advice, (therefore going against thre tradition) and disagreeing (with ancient advice) is NOT good for us the DECENT ones " ] Therefore those who are Ayogya (INDECENT) can follow any path they follow - but certainly I will prefer the path shown by Rishis like Skanda and Parasara, and scholars like Mihira who followed that path only. May be, it can all be a touch stone to our approach and personality. You said - //In the field of knowledge, research and observation is only criteria of progress. // But that is not the Indian way. As per our approach, Agama (intuitive REVEALED knowledge), Anumana (logically derived knowledge based on Agama) and Pratyaksha (realistically observed knowledge) forms the pillars of real knowledge and knowledge derivation. Through he above words you have accepted both Anumana and Pratyaksha but DENIED the original AGAMA! i.e. You have DENIED both Vedic and Tantric REVEALED knowledge and the value of INTUITION! I don't agree to this. PRATYAKSHA (readily visible) is and would be acceptable by all - even by a Kaul. PAROKSHA (Agama and Anumana - Intuition and logic) are not accepted by Kaulians. But certainly even Science accepts a branch of Anumana (Analytical Logic) but rejects the other part of Anumana - i.e. Holistic Logic. Agama (intuitively revealed knowledge) is not accepted by science even though every human brain including that of scientists uses it. The correct approach would be to realize the value of ancient approach and value Agama, Anumana and Pratyaksha; i.e. to accept both Pratyaksha and Paroksha. Veda states - " Paroksha priya iva hi deva " (Gods prefer and value the indirect knowledge - derived through intuition and logic - more) Hope you will see the point. Love and regards, Sreenadh , " sreesog " <sreesog wrote: > > Dear Kursujia ji, > //The whole Western astrology accepted the concept of unequal longitude in astronomy and astrology. What is the harm in accepting the truth and create bhava chalit chart in astrology. // > First, We are doing Indian astrology and not western astrology. > Second, As message #26882 from Vijay Goel ji points out, treating signs itself as house is the system supported by all ancient classics, and also by many well known astro scholars. This is the method majority of scholars agree upon. Even the people who are against this system agree that even Parasara and Mihira used this system and none other. > Ofcourse using Bhava chalit on an experimental basis is OK even in this group, since it is supported by many astro scholars starting from Sripati of 10th century. It is all individual preference - some may prefer to use it some may not. But as a group in favor of " ANCIENT " this group prefers to go by what the sages taught than the ahcaryas. > It is said that when there is conflict of opinion between Sruti (Veda) and smriti (Neetisastra) then Sruti is preferred because it got REVEALED to the the vedic sages; the are the original DRASTA (visionaries/viewers) of this system/knowledge. > In the same way when there is a conflict of opinion between the Sages (Sage told; Rishi Prokta) and Acharya (Acharya Prokta, Teacher told), the Rishi prokta (Sage told) is preferred because it got REVEALED to the sages. Rishis saw it, visualized it, had original first hand interaction with it, they are the Drashtas (visionaries/viewers), they are the ones with pure intuition to come in direct contact with the truth. This is not true for teachers (achartyas) and therefore their words are of only secondary importance. > In an Agama sastra like astrology we are supposed to follow the path told by the sages. Even mihira stats " Astrology is an Agama sastra, how can I speak/go against the words of the sages - I too will follow and appreciate them " . Even Rig veda states - " (In Nigama/Vedic sastras) it is always preferable to follow the path shown by the sages, then we will not have to worry that we have erred in our path " > Hope you will agree with me. But if you want to discard the value of ancient knowledge, and against the advice of both Agama and Nigama sastras (both Vedic and traditional astrological advice) then it is upto you - a personal choice/opinion. I am not against that as well - BUT for sure I don't prefer that; and would prefer to follow the Agama patha while learning a subject like astrology. > Love and regards, > Sreenadh > > , " S.C. Kursija " <sckursija@> wrote: > > > > Dear Sreenadh, > > I am sorry to differ with you. Don't take " what is old is gold. " In the field of knowledge, research and observation is only criteria of progress. I am sorry to write that in good olden days it was considered that the Earth is stationary and Sun is revolving round the Earth, but we have changed the concept. Earth is revolving round the Sun. Similarly it was considered that the bhava and sign are of equal longitude, but time proved that the sign and bhava are of unequal longitude. The whole Western astrology accepted the concept of unequal longitude in astronomy and astrology. What is the harm in accepting the truth and create bhava chalit chart in astrology. Should we lock our knowledge up to Varahmihir or Kalyan verma? So to say that Sripati corrupt the astrology is not acceptable. Rather we should research and observe in the present day astrology how far he was correct? > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 21, 2009 Report Share Posted October 21, 2009 Dear Bhaksar ji, //> Parashari Bhav Chalit I doubt more than 2 members on all these jyotish groups collectively would be able to judge, because it is the finest system of prognositaction in the world, and beats every other system.// The point is Bhava chalit is NOT Parasari. Sage Parasara supports using " Sign itself as house " only. If you like to call it as a Bhava system then it is ok. That itself is the original system. If you think that Parasara proposes any other Bhava system, then can you provide us with the relevant quote? If Prasara proposes some other bhava system (instead of treating Sign itself as Bhavas), then I would agree that the Bhava chalit system was in existence before Sripathi itself and also that it is traditional. But I haven't came across any reference from BPHS that could prove the same till date. If you can help me on this you are welcome to do so. Thus I will conclude that - * I am using Parasari House system but you are NOT * You are using Sripathi (or some other like western plecideous system advice by Krishnamoorti) house system but I am NOT. We cannot ascribe something to Parasara, that he never supports! Love and regards, Sreenadh , " Bhaskar " <bhaskar_jyotish wrote: > > > Dear Sreenadh ji, > > because our ancients did not use calculator and did calculations by > other means, does not mean that we must continue doing so. This does not > make sense. > > Parashari Bhav Chalit I doubt more than 2 members on all these jyotish > groups collectively would be able to judge, because it is the finest > system of prognositaction in the world, and beats every other system. > Unfortunately there are very few to teach us how to read from this > chart, does not mean that I will call the dance floor not in shape just > because I have not learnt how to trot. > > Another point, we are doing a great disservice to the ancient > astrologers who have given us this heritage which makes us today well > known in our circle, brings in reputation and also money to pros like > myself, if we are going to continue disreputing the old astrologers igf > a bygone era, like the term used in the mail for " Shripathi " then dont > you agree therew ould be no diffference between AKK and those who > indulge in such disrepute ? > > What is ancient no one can define. The Babri Masjid faithful say that > there was a masjid here a thousand years ago, but the Ram Lalla faithful > will say that 2000 years and beyond this there was a temple of Ram here. > > We cannot define what is ancient or not, who is good or not, we can only > agree or disagree biut cannot call anyone from our great culture as > having corrupted astrology. > > Love and regards,Bhaskar. > , " sreesog " <sreesog@> > wrote: > > > > Dear Kursujia ji, > > //The whole Western astrology accepted the concept of unequal > longitude in astronomy and astrology. What is the harm in accepting the > truth and create bhava chalit chart in astrology. // > > First, We are doing Indian astrology and not western astrology. > > Second, As message #26882 from Vijay Goel ji points out, treating > signs itself as house is the system supported by all ancient classics, > and also by many well known astro scholars. This is the method majority > of scholars agree upon. Even the people who are against this system > agree that even Parasara and Mihira used this system and none other. > > Ofcourse using Bhava chalit on an experimental basis is OK even in > this group, since it is supported by many astro scholars starting from > Sripati of 10th century. It is all individual preference - some may > prefer to use it some may not. But as a group in favor of " ANCIENT " this > group prefers to go by what the sages taught than the ahcaryas. > > It is said that when there is conflict of opinion between Sruti (Veda) > and smriti (Neetisastra) then Sruti is preferred because it got REVEALED > to the the vedic sages; the are the original DRASTA > (visionaries/viewers) of this system/knowledge. > > In the same way when there is a conflict of opinion between the Sages > (Sage told; Rishi Prokta) and Acharya (Acharya Prokta, Teacher told), > the Rishi prokta (Sage told) is preferred because it got REVEALED to the > sages. Rishis saw it, visualized it, had original first hand interaction > with it, they are the Drashtas (visionaries/viewers), they are the ones > with pure intuition to come in direct contact with the truth. This is > not true for teachers (achartyas) and therefore their words are of only > secondary importance. > > In an Agama sastra like astrology we are supposed to follow the path > told by the sages. Even mihira stats " Astrology is an Agama sastra, how > can I speak/go against the words of the sages - I too will follow and > appreciate them " . Even Rig veda states - " (In Nigama/Vedic sastras) it > is always preferable to follow the path shown by the sages, then we will > not have to worry that we have erred in our path " > > Hope you will agree with me. But if you want to discard the value of > ancient knowledge, and against the advice of both Agama and Nigama > sastras (both Vedic and traditional astrological advice) then it is upto > you - a personal choice/opinion. I am not against that as well - BUT for > sure I don't prefer that; and would prefer to follow the Agama patha > while learning a subject like astrology. > > Love and regards, > > Sreenadh > > > > , " S.C. Kursija " > sckursija@ wrote: > > > > > > Dear Sreenadh, > > > I am sorry to differ with you. Don't take " what is old is gold. " In > the field of knowledge, research and observation is only criteria of > progress. I am sorry to write that in good olden days it was considered > that the Earth is stationary and Sun is revolving round the Earth, but > we have changed the concept. Earth is revolving round the Sun. Similarly > it was considered that the bhava and sign are of equal longitude, but > time proved that the sign and bhava are of unequal longitude. The whole > Western astrology accepted the concept of unequal longitude in astronomy > and astrology. What is the harm in accepting the truth and create bhava > chalit chart in astrology. Should we lock our knowledge up to Varahmihir > or Kalyan verma? So to say that Sripati corrupt the astrology is not > acceptable. Rather we should research and observe in the present day > astrology how far he was correct? > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 21, 2009 Report Share Posted October 21, 2009 Dear Sreenadh ji, But you have yourself just last week adjudged Parashar as not right, and the BPHS as being corrupted, then in that case, I request you to get me the original BPHS, and I would point out the relevant shlokas to you. And even if I did so you may still not consider them as authentic. So whats the point ? But again, everything is not shlokas, we need somebody to understand them. Who will understand them, the way they need to be understood ? Love n regards, Bhaskar. , " sreesog " <sreesog wrote: > > Dear Bhaksar ji, > //> Parashari Bhav Chalit I doubt more than 2 members on all these jyotish groups collectively would be able to judge, because it is the finest system of prognositaction in the world, and beats every other system.// > The point is Bhava chalit is NOT Parasari. Sage Parasara supports using " Sign itself as house " only. If you like to call it as a Bhava system then it is ok. That itself is the original system. > If you think that Parasara proposes any other Bhava system, then can you provide us with the relevant quote? If Prasara proposes some other bhava system (instead of treating Sign itself as Bhavas), then I would agree that the Bhava chalit system was in existence before Sripathi itself and also that it is traditional. But I haven't came across any reference from BPHS that could prove the same till date. If you can help me on this you are welcome to do so. > Thus I will conclude that - > * I am using Parasari House system but you are NOT > * You are using Sripathi (or some other like western plecideous system advice by Krishnamoorti) house system but I am NOT. > We cannot ascribe something to Parasara, that he never supports! > Love and regards, > Sreenadh > > , " Bhaskar " bhaskar_jyotish@ wrote: > > > > > > Dear Sreenadh ji, > > > > because our ancients did not use calculator and did calculations by > > other means, does not mean that we must continue doing so. This does not > > make sense. > > > > Parashari Bhav Chalit I doubt more than 2 members on all these jyotish > > groups collectively would be able to judge, because it is the finest > > system of prognositaction in the world, and beats every other system. > > Unfortunately there are very few to teach us how to read from this > > chart, does not mean that I will call the dance floor not in shape just > > because I have not learnt how to trot. > > > > Another point, we are doing a great disservice to the ancient > > astrologers who have given us this heritage which makes us today well > > known in our circle, brings in reputation and also money to pros like > > myself, if we are going to continue disreputing the old astrologers igf > > a bygone era, like the term used in the mail for " Shripathi " then dont > > you agree therew ould be no diffference between AKK and those who > > indulge in such disrepute ? > > > > What is ancient no one can define. The Babri Masjid faithful say that > > there was a masjid here a thousand years ago, but the Ram Lalla faithful > > will say that 2000 years and beyond this there was a temple of Ram here. > > > > We cannot define what is ancient or not, who is good or not, we can only > > agree or disagree biut cannot call anyone from our great culture as > > having corrupted astrology. > > > > Love and regards,Bhaskar. > > , " sreesog " <sreesog@> > > wrote: > > > > > > Dear Kursujia ji, > > > //The whole Western astrology accepted the concept of unequal > > longitude in astronomy and astrology. What is the harm in accepting the > > truth and create bhava chalit chart in astrology. // > > > First, We are doing Indian astrology and not western astrology. > > > Second, As message #26882 from Vijay Goel ji points out, treating > > signs itself as house is the system supported by all ancient classics, > > and also by many well known astro scholars. This is the method majority > > of scholars agree upon. Even the people who are against this system > > agree that even Parasara and Mihira used this system and none other. > > > Ofcourse using Bhava chalit on an experimental basis is OK even in > > this group, since it is supported by many astro scholars starting from > > Sripati of 10th century. It is all individual preference - some may > > prefer to use it some may not. But as a group in favor of " ANCIENT " this > > group prefers to go by what the sages taught than the ahcaryas. > > > It is said that when there is conflict of opinion between Sruti (Veda) > > and smriti (Neetisastra) then Sruti is preferred because it got REVEALED > > to the the vedic sages; the are the original DRASTA > > (visionaries/viewers) of this system/knowledge. > > > In the same way when there is a conflict of opinion between the Sages > > (Sage told; Rishi Prokta) and Acharya (Acharya Prokta, Teacher told), > > the Rishi prokta (Sage told) is preferred because it got REVEALED to the > > sages. Rishis saw it, visualized it, had original first hand interaction > > with it, they are the Drashtas (visionaries/viewers), they are the ones > > with pure intuition to come in direct contact with the truth. This is > > not true for teachers (achartyas) and therefore their words are of only > > secondary importance. > > > In an Agama sastra like astrology we are supposed to follow the path > > told by the sages. Even mihira stats " Astrology is an Agama sastra, how > > can I speak/go against the words of the sages - I too will follow and > > appreciate them " . Even Rig veda states - " (In Nigama/Vedic sastras) it > > is always preferable to follow the path shown by the sages, then we will > > not have to worry that we have erred in our path " > > > Hope you will agree with me. But if you want to discard the value of > > ancient knowledge, and against the advice of both Agama and Nigama > > sastras (both Vedic and traditional astrological advice) then it is upto > > you - a personal choice/opinion. I am not against that as well - BUT for > > sure I don't prefer that; and would prefer to follow the Agama patha > > while learning a subject like astrology. > > > Love and regards, > > > Sreenadh > > > > > > , " S.C. Kursija " > > sckursija@ wrote: > > > > > > > > Dear Sreenadh, > > > > I am sorry to differ with you. Don't take " what is old is gold. " In > > the field of knowledge, research and observation is only criteria of > > progress. I am sorry to write that in good olden days it was considered > > that the Earth is stationary and Sun is revolving round the Earth, but > > we have changed the concept. Earth is revolving round the Sun. Similarly > > it was considered that the bhava and sign are of equal longitude, but > > time proved that the sign and bhava are of unequal longitude. The whole > > Western astrology accepted the concept of unequal longitude in astronomy > > and astrology. What is the harm in accepting the truth and create bhava > > chalit chart in astrology. Should we lock our knowledge up to Varahmihir > > or Kalyan verma? So to say that Sripati corrupt the astrology is not > > acceptable. Rather we should research and observe in the present day > > astrology how far he was correct? > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 21, 2009 Report Share Posted October 21, 2009 Dear Sreenadh ji, Thanks for making things more clear. I agree with Pratyaksha and logic,part of Paroksha. So for as intuition is concern, i have some reservations. Intuition depends on the knowledge of the native and Sanskara. The intuition is process of thinking. If a person go on thinking on one subject, again and again. He may have sudden idea of some thing which is connected with the process of thinking but some thing new also. It is not vague at all. So it is a part of the logic. The development of the knowledge and mankind is the history of a constant process of fighting with the circumstance and over coming the difficulties. So for as you say that we are studying " Indian Astrology " , no. we are studying the influence of the planet rather graha on human beings and material around us. Astrology is not for the Indians and India only, it is for the Universe and all human beings. As our knowledge about the Universe will increase, we should change our views of the Universe and the influence of the planets on us and territorial matters. Our sages have advised that we should change our data or modify our data of the Universe after every 60 years. That is why there is cycle of Jupiter in our Muhurat Shastra. I do not find any stagnation in our classics. Rather they believe in changeability of every moment. --- On Wed, 10/21/09, sreesog <sreesog wrote: > sreesog <sreesog > Fwd: Re: Importance of Bhav chalit > > Wednesday, October 21, 2009, 12:29 PM > Dear Kursija ji, > Going one step forward (boldly) it can be remembered > that - as per Mihira, " Jytisham agama sastram, na > vipratipattir yogyam asmakam " [Astrology is an ancient Agama > advice, (therefore going against thre tradition) and > disagreeing (with ancient advice) is NOT good for us the > DECENT ones " ] > Therefore those who are Ayogya (INDECENT) can follow any > path they follow - but certainly I will prefer the path > shown by Rishis like Skanda and Parasara, and scholars like > Mihira who followed that path only. > May be, it can all be a touch stone to our approach and > personality. > You said - > //In the field of knowledge, research and observation is > only criteria of progress. // > But that is not the Indian way. As per our approach, Agama > (intuitive REVEALED knowledge), Anumana (logically derived > knowledge based on Agama) and Pratyaksha (realistically > observed knowledge) forms the pillars of real knowledge and > knowledge derivation. Through he above words you have > accepted both Anumana and Pratyaksha but DENIED the original > AGAMA! i.e. You have DENIED both Vedic and Tantric REVEALED > knowledge and the value of INTUITION! I don't agree to > this. > PRATYAKSHA (readily visible) is and would be > acceptable by all - even by a Kaul. > PAROKSHA (Agama and Anumana - Intuition and logic) > are not accepted by Kaulians. But certainly even Science > accepts a branch of Anumana (Analytical Logic) but rejects > the other part of Anumana - i.e. Holistic Logic. Agama > (intuitively revealed knowledge) is not accepted by science > even though every human brain including that of scientists > uses it. > The correct approach would be to realize the value > of ancient approach and value Agama, Anumana and Pratyaksha; > i.e. to accept both Pratyaksha and Paroksha. Veda states - > " Paroksha priya iva hi deva " (Gods prefer and value the > indirect knowledge - derived through intuition and logic - > more) > Hope you will see the point. > Love and regards, > Sreenadh > > , > " sreesog " <sreesog wrote: > > > > Dear Kursujia ji, > > //The whole Western astrology accepted the concept of > unequal longitude in astronomy and astrology. What is the > harm in accepting the truth and create bhava chalit chart in > astrology. // > > First, We are doing Indian astrology > and not western astrology. > > Second, As message #26882 from Vijay > Goel ji points out, treating signs itself as house is the > system supported by all ancient classics, and also by many > well known astro scholars. This is the method majority of > scholars agree upon. Even the people who are against this > system agree that even Parasara and Mihira used this system > and none other. > > Ofcourse using Bhava chalit on an experimental > basis is OK even in this group, since it is supported by > many astro scholars starting from Sripati of 10th century. > It is all individual preference - some may prefer to use it > some may not. But as a group in favor of " ANCIENT " this > group prefers to go by what the sages taught than the > ahcaryas. > > It is said that when there is > conflict of opinion between Sruti (Veda) and smriti > (Neetisastra) then Sruti is preferred because it got > REVEALED to the the vedic sages; the are the original DRASTA > (visionaries/viewers) of this system/knowledge. > > In the same way when there is a > conflict of opinion between the Sages (Sage told; Rishi > Prokta) and Acharya (Acharya Prokta, Teacher told), the > Rishi prokta (Sage told) is preferred because it got > REVEALED to the sages. Rishis saw it, visualized it, had > original first hand interaction with it, they are the > Drashtas (visionaries/viewers), they are the ones with pure > intuition to come in direct contact with the truth. This is > not true for teachers (achartyas) and therefore their words > are of only secondary importance. > > In an Agama sastra like astrology we > are supposed to follow the path told by the sages. Even > mihira stats " Astrology is an Agama sastra, how can I > speak/go against the words of the sages - I too will follow > and appreciate them " . Even Rig veda states - " (In > Nigama/Vedic sastras) it is always preferable to follow the > path shown by the sages, then we will not have to worry that > we have erred in our path " > > Hope you will agree with me. But if you > want to discard the value of ancient knowledge, and against > the advice of both Agama and Nigama sastras (both Vedic and > traditional astrological advice) then it is upto you - > a personal choice/opinion. I am not against that as > well - BUT for sure I don't prefer that; and would prefer to > follow the Agama patha while learning a subject like > astrology. > > Love and regards, > > Sreenadh > > > > , > " S.C. Kursija " <sckursija@> wrote: > > > > > > Dear Sreenadh, > > > I am sorry to differ with you. Don't take " what > is old is gold. " In the field of knowledge, research and > observation is only criteria of progress. I am sorry to > write that in good olden days it was considered that > the Earth is stationary and Sun is revolving round the > Earth, but we have changed the concept. Earth is revolving > round the Sun. Similarly it was considered that the bhava > and sign are of equal longitude, but time proved that the > sign and bhava are of unequal longitude. The whole Western > astrology accepted the concept of unequal longitude in > astronomy and astrology. What is the harm in accepting the > truth and create bhava chalit chart in astrology. Should we > lock our knowledge up to Varahmihir or Kalyan verma? So to > say that Sripati corrupt the astrology is not acceptable. > Rather we should research and observe in the present day > astrology how far he was correct? > > > > > > > --- > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 21, 2009 Report Share Posted October 21, 2009 Dear Kursija ji, //Intuition depends on the knowledge of the native and Sanskara// Yes, you are absolutely right! And this is very reason for us depending on the Intuition (and thus revelations) of the sages ONLY, and not others while considering the Agama part of subjects like ancient indian astrology. This is the very reason for Nigama (Veda Samhita) and Agama (Tantric) texts getting special reverence and preference. Actually even Agama does not get acceptance if not supported further by Anumana and Pratyaksha. But once when the primary verification of samples are done for our satisfaction, then the whole of Agama gets accepted since our human life very small to verify everything. May be there could be others who could verify everything based on own experience (i.e based on pratyaksha) but don't count me among them. I am not of that caliber, and so after sample verification, I used to accept the whole (i.e. Agama advice by the sages) without questioning. Love and regards, Sreenadh , " S.C. Kursija " <sckursija wrote: > > Dear Sreenadh ji, > Thanks for making things more clear. > I agree with Pratyaksha and logic,part of Paroksha. So for as intuition is concern, i have some reservations. Intuition depends on the knowledge of the native and Sanskara. The intuition is process of thinking. If a person go on thinking on one subject, again and again. He may have sudden idea of some thing which is connected with the process of thinking but some thing new also. It is not vague at all. So it is a part of the logic. > The development of the knowledge and mankind is the history of a constant process of fighting with the circumstance and over coming the difficulties. > > So for as you say that we are studying " Indian Astrology " , no. we are studying the influence of the planet rather graha on human beings and material around us. Astrology is not for the Indians and India only, it is for the Universe and all human beings. As our knowledge about the Universe > will increase, we should change our views of the Universe and the influence of the planets on us and territorial matters. Our sages have advised that we should change our data or modify our data of the Universe after every 60 years. That is why there is cycle of Jupiter in our Muhurat Shastra. > I do not find any stagnation in our classics. Rather they believe in changeability of every moment. > > > --- On Wed, 10/21/09, sreesog <sreesog wrote: > > > sreesog <sreesog > > Fwd: Re: Importance of Bhav chalit > > > > Wednesday, October 21, 2009, 12:29 PM > > Dear Kursija ji, > > Going one step forward (boldly) it can be remembered > > that - as per Mihira, " Jytisham agama sastram, na > > vipratipattir yogyam asmakam " [Astrology is an ancient Agama > > advice, (therefore going against thre tradition) and > > disagreeing (with ancient advice) is NOT good for us the > > DECENT ones " ] > > Therefore those who are Ayogya (INDECENT) can follow any > > path they follow - but certainly I will prefer the path > > shown by Rishis like Skanda and Parasara, and scholars like > > Mihira who followed that path only. > > May be, it can all be a touch stone to our approach and > > personality. > > You said - > > //In the field of knowledge, research and observation is > > only criteria of progress. // > > But that is not the Indian way. As per our approach, Agama > > (intuitive REVEALED knowledge), Anumana (logically derived > > knowledge based on Agama) and Pratyaksha (realistically > > observed knowledge) forms the pillars of real knowledge and > > knowledge derivation. Through he above words you have > > accepted both Anumana and Pratyaksha but DENIED the original > > AGAMA! i.e. You have DENIED both Vedic and Tantric REVEALED > > knowledge and the value of INTUITION! I don't agree to > > this. > > PRATYAKSHA (readily visible) is and would be > > acceptable by all - even by a Kaul. > > PAROKSHA (Agama and Anumana - Intuition and logic) > > are not accepted by Kaulians. But certainly even Science > > accepts a branch of Anumana (Analytical Logic) but rejects > > the other part of Anumana - i.e. Holistic Logic. Agama > > (intuitively revealed knowledge) is not accepted by science > > even though every human brain including that of scientists > > uses it. > > The correct approach would be to realize the value > > of ancient approach and value Agama, Anumana and Pratyaksha; > > i.e. to accept both Pratyaksha and Paroksha. Veda states - > > " Paroksha priya iva hi deva " (Gods prefer and value the > > indirect knowledge - derived through intuition and logic - > > more) > > Hope you will see the point. > > Love and regards, > > Sreenadh Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.