What is Argala? (Parasara/Jaimini System) - Rashi Drishti Doubt - 1

June 5, 2007

Dear shri Sreenadh & Respected members

It is really informative to read your recent historical write up's

regarding Astrology(Arsha paramparya and Parashara/Jaimini).Thank

you very much.

In similar lines to Argala,i have a fundamental doubt regarding

Rashi drishtis.

Let me quote from the translation done by Shri Surya Narain Rao.

SU.2.-Abhipasyanti rikshani. The zodiacal signs aspect each other

(in their front). SU. 3.-Parswabhe cha. Excepting.the next zodiacal

signs to them. SU. 4.- ?ihann ishthascha tadvat. Those planets which

occupy such signs will also aspect the planets found in such houses.

Respected translator makes the following HONEST statement - ''The

zodiacal signs aspect each other which are in their FRONT. I DO NOT

exactly understand what is meant by the word FRONT''.Then he says

commentators observe - Mesha has Vrishchika,Mithuna has

Thula .....Meena has Mithuna as their front signs.

Pls see my next mail for personal views.

Regds

Pradeep

, " Sreenadh " <sreesog wrote:

>

> Dear All,

> What is Argala? What is the popular opinion about the same? In

what

> situations it is applicable? Are there any contradictions between

the

> definition of Argala by Parasara and Jaimini? What is your

opinion?

> Please clarify.

> Regards,

> Sreenadh

>

June 6, 2007

Dear Pradeep,

If you draw a south indian style chart you will find that the signs do

aspect the ones in front of them. Parshva means side of the body and the

second sutra tells that they also aspect the signs to their side. The

interpretation of sutras is always difficult. However there are Vriddha

Karikas that make the situation quite crystal clear. Parashara also uses

the same terminology but goes on th explain that the adjacent rasis are

not aspected upon and the explanation of the rasi aspect is clarified

beyond doubt by him. Krishnanand Saraswati, in his commentary on Jaimini

sutras also express the same opinion. The grahas occupying the rasis

also have identical aspects as those of the rasis.

Take care,

Chandrashekhar.

vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

>

> Dear shri Sreenadh & Respected members

>

> It is really informative to read your recent historical write up's

> regarding Astrology(Arsha paramparya and Parashara/Jaimini).Thank

> you very much.

>

> In similar lines to Argala,i have a fundamental doubt regarding

> Rashi drishtis.

>

> Let me quote from the translation done by Shri Surya Narain Rao.

> SU.2.-Abhipasyanti rikshani. The zodiacal signs aspect each other

> (in their front). SU. 3.-Parswabhe cha. Excepting.the next zodiacal

> signs to them. SU. 4.- ?ihann ishthascha tadvat. Those planets which

> occupy such signs will also aspect the planets found in such houses.

> Respected translator makes the following HONEST statement - ''The

> zodiacal signs aspect each other which are in their FRONT. I DO NOT

> exactly understand what is meant by the word FRONT''.Then he says

> commentators observe - Mesha has Vrishchika,Mithuna has

> Thula .....Meena has Mithuna as their front signs.

>

> Pls see my next mail for personal views.

>

> Regds

> Pradeep

>

> <%40>, " Sreenadh " <sreesog wrote:

> >

> > Dear All,

> > What is Argala? What is the popular opinion about the same? In

> what

> > situations it is applicable? Are there any contradictions between

> the

> > definition of Argala by Parasara and Jaimini? What is your

> opinion?

> > Please clarify.

> > Regards,

> > Sreenadh

> >

>

> ------

>

> Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.8.9/832 - Release 6/4/2007 6:43

PM

>

June 7, 2007

Dear Chandrashekhar ji,

I think the interpretation of Jaimini sutras become far more easier

if we find the bolt and the key.

* The Bolt is: Jaimini sutra is not an independent text, it is a

guide to BPHS concepts, extending them a bit.

* The Key is: Refer to BPHS first always for clarity, and then try

unlocking Jaimini sutra with the same.

P.S: May be BPHS is Anargala and Jaimini sutra is the Argala. )

Love,

Sreenadh

, Chandrashekhar

<chandrashekhar46 wrote:

>

> Dear Pradeep,

>

> If you draw a south indian style chart you will find that the signs

do

> aspect the ones in front of them. Parshva means side of the body

and the

> second sutra tells that they also aspect the signs to their side.

The

> interpretation of sutras is always difficult. However there are

Vriddha

> Karikas that make the situation quite crystal clear. Parashara also

uses

> the same terminology but goes on th explain that the adjacent rasis

are

> not aspected upon and the explanation of the rasi aspect is

clarified

> beyond doubt by him. Krishnanand Saraswati, in his commentary on

Jaimini

> sutras also express the same opinion. The grahas occupying the

rasis

> also have identical aspects as those of the rasis.

>

> Take care,

>

> Chandrashekhar.

>

> vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> >

> > Dear shri Sreenadh & Respected members

> >

> > It is really informative to read your recent historical write up's

> > regarding Astrology(Arsha paramparya and Parashara/Jaimini).Thank

> > you very much.

> >

> > In similar lines to Argala,i have a fundamental doubt regarding

> > Rashi drishtis.

> >

> > Let me quote from the translation done by Shri Surya Narain Rao.

> > SU.2.-Abhipasyanti rikshani. The zodiacal signs aspect each other

> > (in their front). SU. 3.-Parswabhe cha. Excepting.the next

zodiacal

> > signs to them. SU. 4.- ?ihann ishthascha tadvat. Those planets

which

> > occupy such signs will also aspect the planets found in such

houses.

> > Respected translator makes the following HONEST statement - ''The

> > zodiacal signs aspect each other which are in their FRONT. I DO

NOT

> > exactly understand what is meant by the word FRONT''.Then he says

> > commentators observe - Mesha has Vrishchika,Mithuna has

> > Thula .....Meena has Mithuna as their front signs.

> >

> > Pls see my next mail for personal views.

> >

> > Regds

> > Pradeep

> >

> > <%40>, " Sreenadh " <sreesog@>

wrote:

> > >

> > > Dear All,

> > > What is Argala? What is the popular opinion about the same? In

> > what

> > > situations it is applicable? Are there any contradictions

between

> > the

> > > definition of Argala by Parasara and Jaimini? What is your

> > opinion?

> > > Please clarify.

> > > Regards,

> > > Sreenadh

> > >

> >

------

> >

> > Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.8.9/832 - Release Date:

6/4/2007 6:43 PM

> >

>

June 7, 2007

Dear Sreenadh,

But if the two are giving different sets of principles, as indicated by

you in another mail, then how do you verify the veracity of the sutras.

Anyway, I still do not find enough evidence to think that Parashara is

Anargala and Jaimini is Argala. Only Lord Shiva is Anargala and we do

not have access to him.

Chandrashekhar.

Sreenadh wrote:

>

> Dear Chandrashekhar ji,

> I think the interpretation of Jaimini sutras become far more easier

> if we find the bolt and the key.

> * The Bolt is: Jaimini sutra is not an independent text, it is a

> guide to BPHS concepts, extending them a bit.

> * The Key is: Refer to BPHS first always for clarity, and then try

> unlocking Jaimini sutra with the same.

>

> P.S: May be BPHS is Anargala and Jaimini sutra is the Argala. )

> Love,

> Sreenadh

>

> <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> <chandrashekhar46 wrote:

> >

> > Dear Pradeep,

> >

> > If you draw a south indian style chart you will find that the signs

> do

> > aspect the ones in front of them. Parshva means side of the body

> and the

> > second sutra tells that they also aspect the signs to their side.

> The

> > interpretation of sutras is always difficult. However there are

> Vriddha

> > Karikas that make the situation quite crystal clear. Parashara also

> uses

> > the same terminology but goes on th explain that the adjacent rasis

> are

> > not aspected upon and the explanation of the rasi aspect is

> clarified

> > beyond doubt by him. Krishnanand Saraswati, in his commentary on

> Jaimini

> > sutras also express the same opinion. The grahas occupying the

> rasis

> > also have identical aspects as those of the rasis.

> >

> > Take care,

> >

> > Chandrashekhar.

> >

> > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > >

> > > Dear shri Sreenadh & Respected members

> > >

> > > It is really informative to read your recent historical write up's

> > > regarding Astrology(Arsha paramparya and Parashara/Jaimini).Thank

> > > you very much.

> > >

> > > In similar lines to Argala,i have a fundamental doubt regarding

> > > Rashi drishtis.

> > >

> > > Let me quote from the translation done by Shri Surya Narain Rao.

> > > SU.2.-Abhipasyanti rikshani. The zodiacal signs aspect each other

> > > (in their front). SU. 3.-Parswabhe cha. Excepting.the next

> zodiacal

> > > signs to them. SU. 4.- ?ihann ishthascha tadvat. Those planets

> which

> > > occupy such signs will also aspect the planets found in such

> houses.

> > > Respected translator makes the following HONEST statement - ''The

> > > zodiacal signs aspect each other which are in their FRONT. I DO

> NOT

> > > exactly understand what is meant by the word FRONT''.Then he says

> > > commentators observe - Mesha has Vrishchika,Mithuna has

> > > Thula .....Meena has Mithuna as their front signs.

> > >

> > > Pls see my next mail for personal views.

> > >

> > > Regds

> > > Pradeep

> > >

> <%40>

> > > <%40>, " Sreenadh " <sreesog@>

> wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Dear All,

> > > > What is Argala? What is the popular opinion about the same? In

> > > what

> > > > situations it is applicable? Are there any contradictions

> between

> > > the

> > > > definition of Argala by Parasara and Jaimini? What is your

> > > opinion?

> > > > Please clarify.

> > > > Regards,

> > > > Sreenadh

> > > >

> > >

> > > -------------------------

> ------

> > >

> > > Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.8.9/832 - Release Date:

> 6/4/2007 6:43 PM

> > >

> >

June 7, 2007

Dear Chandrashekhar ji

Thanks for the explanation.Even if we take South Indian chart,there

is a problem.

If we say front,then why is Sag not aspecting Aquarius,which is on

front,but aspects Meena which comes after Aqua.Similarly Kanya and

Karka.similarly there are other concerns.

As you have mentioned,commentators might have been influenced by

south indian style.

Respect

Pradeep

, Chandrashekhar

<chandrashekhar46 wrote:

>

> Dear Pradeep,

>

> If you draw a south indian style chart you will find that the signs

do

> aspect the ones in front of them. Parshva means side of the body

and the

> second sutra tells that they also aspect the signs to their side.

The

> interpretation of sutras is always difficult. However there are

Vriddha

> Karikas that make the situation quite crystal clear. Parashara also

uses

> the same terminology but goes on th explain that the adjacent rasis

are

> not aspected upon and the explanation of the rasi aspect is

clarified

> beyond doubt by him. Krishnanand Saraswati, in his commentary on

Jaimini

> sutras also express the same opinion. The grahas occupying the

rasis

> also have identical aspects as those of the rasis.

>

> Take care,

>

> Chandrashekhar.

>

> vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> >

> > Dear shri Sreenadh & Respected members

> >

> > It is really informative to read your recent historical write up's

> > regarding Astrology(Arsha paramparya and Parashara/Jaimini).Thank

> > you very much.

> >

> > In similar lines to Argala,i have a fundamental doubt regarding

> > Rashi drishtis.

> >

> > Let me quote from the translation done by Shri Surya Narain Rao.

> > SU.2.-Abhipasyanti rikshani. The zodiacal signs aspect each other

> > (in their front). SU. 3.-Parswabhe cha. Excepting.the next

zodiacal

> > signs to them. SU. 4.- ?ihann ishthascha tadvat. Those planets

which

> > occupy such signs will also aspect the planets found in such

houses.

> > Respected translator makes the following HONEST statement - ''The

> > zodiacal signs aspect each other which are in their FRONT. I DO

NOT

> > exactly understand what is meant by the word FRONT''.Then he says

> > commentators observe - Mesha has Vrishchika,Mithuna has

> > Thula .....Meena has Mithuna as their front signs.

> >

> > Pls see my next mail for personal views.

> >

> > Regds

> > Pradeep

> >

> > <%40>, " Sreenadh " <sreesog@>

wrote:

> > >

> > > Dear All,

> > > What is Argala? What is the popular opinion about the same? In

> > what

> > > situations it is applicable? Are there any contradictions

between

> > the

> > > definition of Argala by Parasara and Jaimini? What is your

> > opinion?

> > > Please clarify.

> > > Regards,

> > > Sreenadh

> > >

> >

------

> >

> > Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.8.9/832 - Release Date:

6/4/2007 6:43 PM

> >

>

June 7, 2007

Dear Pradeep,

The reference to south indian chart is actually to just point out that

there are more than one style of charts that have to be considered when

we consider interpretation of abhipashyanti rikshaani. All other rasis

aspecting each other the cardinal signs also aspect each others from

their position of being in a corner. So the side wise view is on the

Rasis not aspected by other group of rasis, which lead to their

aspecting only other cardinal rasis.

There is a circular diagram that explains this concept of aspect to

rasis in front and sides, barring the adjacent rasis, beautifully and I

have tried to draw it for you and it is attached for your information in

..doc format. Only you will have to pardon my limited skills with drawing

tools. The concept is actually elaborated at length by both Parashara

and also in Vriddha karikas. So there is no ambiguity in the matter.

Take care,

Chandrashekhar.

vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

>

> Dear Chandrashekhar ji

>

> Thanks for the explanation.Even if we take South Indian chart,there

> is a problem.

> If we say front,then why is Sag not aspecting Aquarius,which is on

> front,but aspects Meena which comes after Aqua.Similarly Kanya and

> Karka.similarly there are other concerns.

> As you have mentioned,commentators might have been influenced by

> south indian style.

>

> Respect

> Pradeep

>

> <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> <chandrashekhar46 wrote:

> >

> > Dear Pradeep,

> >

> > If you draw a south indian style chart you will find that the signs

> do

> > aspect the ones in front of them. Parshva means side of the body

> and the

> > second sutra tells that they also aspect the signs to their side.

> The

> > interpretation of sutras is always difficult. However there are

> Vriddha

> > Karikas that make the situation quite crystal clear. Parashara also

> uses

> > the same terminology but goes on th explain that the adjacent rasis

> are

> > not aspected upon and the explanation of the rasi aspect is

> clarified

> > beyond doubt by him. Krishnanand Saraswati, in his commentary on

> Jaimini

> > sutras also express the same opinion. The grahas occupying the

> rasis

> > also have identical aspects as those of the rasis.

> >

> > Take care,

> >

> > Chandrashekhar.

> >

> > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > >

> > > Dear shri Sreenadh & Respected members

> > >

> > > It is really informative to read your recent historical write up's

> > > regarding Astrology(Arsha paramparya and Parashara/Jaimini).Thank

> > > you very much.

> > >

> > > In similar lines to Argala,i have a fundamental doubt regarding

> > > Rashi drishtis.

> > >

> > > Let me quote from the translation done by Shri Surya Narain Rao.

> > > SU.2.-Abhipasyanti rikshani. The zodiacal signs aspect each other

> > > (in their front). SU. 3.-Parswabhe cha. Excepting.the next

> zodiacal

> > > signs to them. SU. 4.- ?ihann ishthascha tadvat. Those planets

> which

> > > occupy such signs will also aspect the planets found in such

> houses.

> > > Respected translator makes the following HONEST statement - ''The

> > > zodiacal signs aspect each other which are in their FRONT. I DO

> NOT

> > > exactly understand what is meant by the word FRONT''.Then he says

> > > commentators observe - Mesha has Vrishchika,Mithuna has

> > > Thula .....Meena has Mithuna as their front signs.

> > >

> > > Pls see my next mail for personal views.

> > >

> > > Regds

> > > Pradeep

> > >

> <%40>

> > > <%40>, " Sreenadh " <sreesog@>

> wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Dear All,

> > > > What is Argala? What is the popular opinion about the same? In

> > > what

> > > > situations it is applicable? Are there any contradictions

> between

> > > the

> > > > definition of Argala by Parasara and Jaimini? What is your

> > > opinion?

> > > > Please clarify.

> > > > Regards,

> > > > Sreenadh

> > > >

> > >

> > > -------------------------

> ------

> > >

> > > Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.8.9/832 - Release Date:

> 6/4/2007 6:43 PM

> > >

> >

June 8, 2007

Dear Chandrashekhar ji

Thanks for mail.Kindly send the diagram to vijayadas_pradeep

as i have opted for reading from the group site.

Respect

Pradeep , Chandrashekhar

<chandrashekhar46 wrote:

>

> Dear Pradeep,

> The reference to south indian chart is actually to just point out

that

> there are more than one style of charts that have to be considered

when

> we consider interpretation of abhipashyanti rikshaani. All other

rasis

> aspecting each other the cardinal signs also aspect each others

from

> their position of being in a corner. So the side wise view is on

the

> Rasis not aspected by other group of rasis, which lead to their

> aspecting only other cardinal rasis.

>

> There is a circular diagram that explains this concept of aspect to

> rasis in front and sides, barring the adjacent rasis, beautifully

and I

> have tried to draw it for you and it is attached for your

information in

> .doc format. Only you will have to pardon my limited skills with

drawing

> tools. The concept is actually elaborated at length by both

Parashara

> and also in Vriddha karikas. So there is no ambiguity in the matter.

>

> Take care,

> Chandrashekhar.

>

> vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> >

> > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> >

> > Thanks for the explanation.Even if we take South Indian

chart,there

> > is a problem.

> > If we say front,then why is Sag not aspecting Aquarius,which is on

> > front,but aspects Meena which comes after Aqua.Similarly Kanya and

> > Karka.similarly there are other concerns.

> > As you have mentioned,commentators might have been influenced by

> > south indian style.

> >

> > Respect

> > Pradeep

> >

> > <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > >

> > > Dear Pradeep,

> > >

> > > If you draw a south indian style chart you will find that the

signs

> > do

> > > aspect the ones in front of them. Parshva means side of the body

> > and the

> > > second sutra tells that they also aspect the signs to their

side.

> > The

> > > interpretation of sutras is always difficult. However there are

> > Vriddha

> > > Karikas that make the situation quite crystal clear. Parashara

also

> > uses

> > > the same terminology but goes on th explain that the adjacent

rasis

> > are

> > > not aspected upon and the explanation of the rasi aspect is

> > clarified

> > > beyond doubt by him. Krishnanand Saraswati, in his commentary on

> > Jaimini

> > > sutras also express the same opinion. The grahas occupying the

> > rasis

> > > also have identical aspects as those of the rasis.

> > >

> > > Take care,

> > >

> > > Chandrashekhar.

> > >

> > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Dear shri Sreenadh & Respected members

> > > >

> > > > It is really informative to read your recent historical write

up's

> > > > regarding Astrology(Arsha paramparya and

Parashara/Jaimini).Thank

> > > > you very much.

> > > >

> > > > In similar lines to Argala,i have a fundamental doubt

regarding

> > > > Rashi drishtis.

> > > >

> > > > Let me quote from the translation done by Shri Surya Narain

Rao.

> > > > SU.2.-Abhipasyanti rikshani. The zodiacal signs aspect each

other

> > > > (in their front). SU. 3.-Parswabhe cha. Excepting.the next

> > zodiacal

> > > > signs to them. SU. 4.- ?ihann ishthascha tadvat. Those planets

> > which

> > > > occupy such signs will also aspect the planets found in such

> > houses.

> > > > Respected translator makes the following HONEST statement -

''The

> > > > zodiacal signs aspect each other which are in their FRONT. I

DO

> > NOT

> > > > exactly understand what is meant by the word FRONT''.Then he

says

> > > > commentators observe - Mesha has Vrishchika,Mithuna has

> > > > Thula .....Meena has Mithuna as their front signs.

> > > >

> > > > Pls see my next mail for personal views.

> > > >

> > > > Regds

> > > > Pradeep

> > > >

> > <%40>

> > > > <%40>, " Sreenadh " <sreesog@>

> > wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > > Dear All,

> > > > > What is Argala? What is the popular opinion about the same?

In

> > > > what

> > > > > situations it is applicable? Are there any contradictions

> > between

> > > > the

> > > > > definition of Argala by Parasara and Jaimini? What is your

> > > > opinion?

> > > > > Please clarify.

> > > > > Regards,

> > > > > Sreenadh

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > > -------------------------

> > ------

> > > >

> > > > Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.8.9/832 - Release Date:

> > 6/4/2007 6:43 PM

> > > >

> > >

June 8, 2007

Dear Chandrasekhar ji,

1)Even though Jaimini sutra provides a special set of principles as

compared to the available (printed) BPHS, there are many slokas that

supports the same, as available from commentaries of Jaimini sutra

and virdha karikas.

There are many slokas of Parasara available, about many such

concepts that are not present in the printed BPHS, but present in

various commentaries of Jaimini sutra.

2) It is not the simple study of Argala concept alone that helps us

in reaching the conclusion that " Jaimini sutra is a guide and

extension of BPHS, that tries to teach Parasara's concepts " , but

rather-

* the study of the whole book and its approach

* comparison of concepts and words used within it

* the methodology of presentation followed in the book

and many more.

Love,

Sreenadh

, Chandrashekhar

<chandrashekhar46 wrote:

>

> Dear Sreenadh,

>

> But if the two are giving different sets of principles, as

indicated by

> you in another mail, then how do you verify the veracity of the

sutras.

> Anyway, I still do not find enough evidence to think that Parashara

is

> Anargala and Jaimini is Argala. Only Lord Shiva is Anargala and we

do

> not have access to him.

>

> Chandrashekhar.

>

> Sreenadh wrote:

> >

> > Dear Chandrashekhar ji,

> > I think the interpretation of Jaimini sutras become far more

easier

> > if we find the bolt and the key.

> > * The Bolt is: Jaimini sutra is not an independent text, it is a

> > guide to BPHS concepts, extending them a bit.

> > * The Key is: Refer to BPHS first always for clarity, and then try

> > unlocking Jaimini sutra with the same.

> >

> > P.S: May be BPHS is Anargala and Jaimini sutra is the Argala. )

> > Love,

> > Sreenadh

> >

> > <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > >

> > > Dear Pradeep,

> > >

> > > If you draw a south indian style chart you will find that the

signs

> > do

> > > aspect the ones in front of them. Parshva means side of the body

> > and the

> > > second sutra tells that they also aspect the signs to their

side.

> > The

> > > interpretation of sutras is always difficult. However there are

> > Vriddha

> > > Karikas that make the situation quite crystal clear. Parashara

also

> > uses

> > > the same terminology but goes on th explain that the adjacent

rasis

> > are

> > > not aspected upon and the explanation of the rasi aspect is

> > clarified

> > > beyond doubt by him. Krishnanand Saraswati, in his commentary on

> > Jaimini

> > > sutras also express the same opinion. The grahas occupying the

> > rasis

> > > also have identical aspects as those of the rasis.

> > >

> > > Take care,

> > >

> > > Chandrashekhar.

> > >

> > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Dear shri Sreenadh & Respected members

> > > >

> > > > It is really informative to read your recent historical write

up's

> > > > regarding Astrology(Arsha paramparya and

Parashara/Jaimini).Thank

> > > > you very much.

> > > >

> > > > In similar lines to Argala,i have a fundamental doubt

regarding

> > > > Rashi drishtis.

> > > >

> > > > Let me quote from the translation done by Shri Surya Narain

Rao.

> > > > SU.2.-Abhipasyanti rikshani. The zodiacal signs aspect each

other

> > > > (in their front). SU. 3.-Parswabhe cha. Excepting.the next

> > zodiacal

> > > > signs to them. SU. 4.- ?ihann ishthascha tadvat. Those planets

> > which

> > > > occupy such signs will also aspect the planets found in such

> > houses.

> > > > Respected translator makes the following HONEST statement -

''The

> > > > zodiacal signs aspect each other which are in their FRONT. I

DO

> > NOT

> > > > exactly understand what is meant by the word FRONT''.Then he

says

> > > > commentators observe - Mesha has Vrishchika,Mithuna has

> > > > Thula .....Meena has Mithuna as their front signs.

> > > >

> > > > Pls see my next mail for personal views.

> > > >

> > > > Regds

> > > > Pradeep

> > > >

> > <%40>

> > > > <%40>, " Sreenadh " <sreesog@>

> > wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > > Dear All,

> > > > > What is Argala? What is the popular opinion about the same?

In

> > > > what

> > > > > situations it is applicable? Are there any contradictions

> > between

> > > > the

> > > > > definition of Argala by Parasara and Jaimini? What is your

> > > > opinion?

> > > > > Please clarify.

> > > > > Regards,

> > > > > Sreenadh

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > > -------------------------

> > ------

> > > >

> > > > Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.8.9/832 - Release Date:

> > 6/4/2007 6:43 PM

> > > >

> > >

June 8, 2007

Dear Pradeep,

I have sent the diagram to your personal address, as desired.

Chandrashekhar.

vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

>

> Dear Chandrashekhar ji

>

> Thanks for mail.Kindly send the diagram to vijayadas_pradeep

> <vijayadas_pradeep%40>

> as i have opted for reading from the group site.

>

> Respect

> Pradeep

> <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> <chandrashekhar46 wrote:

> >

> > Dear Pradeep,

> > The reference to south indian chart is actually to just point out

> that

> > there are more than one style of charts that have to be considered

> when

> > we consider interpretation of abhipashyanti rikshaani. All other

> rasis

> > aspecting each other the cardinal signs also aspect each others

> from

> > their position of being in a corner. So the side wise view is on

> the

> > Rasis not aspected by other group of rasis, which lead to their

> > aspecting only other cardinal rasis.

> >

> > There is a circular diagram that explains this concept of aspect to

> > rasis in front and sides, barring the adjacent rasis, beautifully

> and I

> > have tried to draw it for you and it is attached for your

> information in

> > .doc format. Only you will have to pardon my limited skills with

> drawing

> > tools. The concept is actually elaborated at length by both

> Parashara

> > and also in Vriddha karikas. So there is no ambiguity in the matter.

> >

> > Take care,

> > Chandrashekhar.

> >

> > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > >

> > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > >

> > > Thanks for the explanation.Even if we take South Indian

> chart,there

> > > is a problem.

> > > If we say front,then why is Sag not aspecting Aquarius,which is on

> > > front,but aspects Meena which comes after Aqua.Similarly Kanya and

> > > Karka.similarly there are other concerns.

> > > As you have mentioned,commentators might have been influenced by

> > > south indian style.

> > >

> > > Respect

> > > Pradeep

> > >

> <%40>

> > > <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > >

> > > > If you draw a south indian style chart you will find that the

> signs

> > > do

> > > > aspect the ones in front of them. Parshva means side of the body

> > > and the

> > > > second sutra tells that they also aspect the signs to their

> side.

> > > The

> > > > interpretation of sutras is always difficult. However there are

> > > Vriddha

> > > > Karikas that make the situation quite crystal clear. Parashara

> also

> > > uses

> > > > the same terminology but goes on th explain that the adjacent

> rasis

> > > are

> > > > not aspected upon and the explanation of the rasi aspect is

> > > clarified

> > > > beyond doubt by him. Krishnanand Saraswati, in his commentary on

> > > Jaimini

> > > > sutras also express the same opinion. The grahas occupying the

> > > rasis

> > > > also have identical aspects as those of the rasis.

> > > >

> > > > Take care,

> > > >

> > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > >

> > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > > Dear shri Sreenadh & Respected members

> > > > >

> > > > > It is really informative to read your recent historical write

> up's

> > > > > regarding Astrology(Arsha paramparya and

> Parashara/Jaimini).Thank

> > > > > you very much.

> > > > >

> > > > > In similar lines to Argala,i have a fundamental doubt

> regarding

> > > > > Rashi drishtis.

> > > > >

> > > > > Let me quote from the translation done by Shri Surya Narain

> Rao.

> > > > > SU.2.-Abhipasyanti rikshani. The zodiacal signs aspect each

> other

> > > > > (in their front). SU. 3.-Parswabhe cha. Excepting.the next

> > > zodiacal

> > > > > signs to them. SU. 4.- ?ihann ishthascha tadvat. Those planets

> > > which

> > > > > occupy such signs will also aspect the planets found in such

> > > houses.

> > > > > Respected translator makes the following HONEST statement -

> ''The

> > > > > zodiacal signs aspect each other which are in their FRONT. I

> DO

> > > NOT

> > > > > exactly understand what is meant by the word FRONT''.Then he

> says

> > > > > commentators observe - Mesha has Vrishchika,Mithuna has

> > > > > Thula .....Meena has Mithuna as their front signs.

> > > > >

> > > > > Pls see my next mail for personal views.

> > > > >

> > > > > Regds

> > > > > Pradeep

> > > > >

> <%40>

> > > <%40>

> > > > > <%40>, " Sreenadh " <sreesog@>

> > > wrote:

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Dear All,

> > > > > > What is Argala? What is the popular opinion about the same?

> In

> > > > > what

> > > > > > situations it is applicable? Are there any contradictions

> > > between

> > > > > the

> > > > > > definition of Argala by Parasara and Jaimini? What is your

> > > > > opinion?

> > > > > > Please clarify.

> > > > > > Regards,

> > > > > > Sreenadh

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > -------------------------

> > > ------

> > > > >

> > > > > Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.8.9/832 - Release Date:

> > > 6/4/2007 6:43 PM

> > > > >

> > > >

June 8, 2007

Dear Sreenadh,

I could have agreed to the contention had Jaimini mentioned somewhere

about Parashara having been his Guru, as was the practice in ancient

sages. Even Parashara tells his having given the knowledge received by

Shaunaka who got it through Garga who in turn received it through

Narada. But then I am an obstinate old person who was taught to base his

judgement of the ancient astrological texts, on both Pramana and tarka.

So let us agree to disagree on this.

Regards,

Chandrashekhar.

Sreenadh wrote:

>

> Dear Chandrasekhar ji,

> 1)Even though Jaimini sutra provides a special set of principles as

> compared to the available (printed) BPHS, there are many slokas that

> supports the same, as available from commentaries of Jaimini sutra

> and virdha karikas.

> There are many slokas of Parasara available, about many such

> concepts that are not present in the printed BPHS, but present in

> various commentaries of Jaimini sutra.

>

> 2) It is not the simple study of Argala concept alone that helps us

> in reaching the conclusion that " Jaimini sutra is a guide and

> extension of BPHS, that tries to teach Parasara's concepts " , but

> rather-

> * the study of the whole book and its approach

> * comparison of concepts and words used within it

> * the methodology of presentation followed in the book

> and many more.

> Love,

> Sreenadh

>

> <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> <chandrashekhar46 wrote:

> >

> > Dear Sreenadh,

> >

> > But if the two are giving different sets of principles, as

> indicated by

> > you in another mail, then how do you verify the veracity of the

> sutras.

> > Anyway, I still do not find enough evidence to think that Parashara

> is

> > Anargala and Jaimini is Argala. Only Lord Shiva is Anargala and we

> do

> > not have access to him.

> >

> > Chandrashekhar.

> >

> > Sreenadh wrote:

> > >

> > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji,

> > > I think the interpretation of Jaimini sutras become far more

> easier

> > > if we find the bolt and the key.

> > > * The Bolt is: Jaimini sutra is not an independent text, it is a

> > > guide to BPHS concepts, extending them a bit.

> > > * The Key is: Refer to BPHS first always for clarity, and then try

> > > unlocking Jaimini sutra with the same.

> > >

> > > P.S: May be BPHS is Anargala and Jaimini sutra is the Argala. )

> > > Love,

> > > Sreenadh

> > >

> <%40>

> > > <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > >

> > > > If you draw a south indian style chart you will find that the

> signs

> > > do

> > > > aspect the ones in front of them. Parshva means side of the body

> > > and the

> > > > second sutra tells that they also aspect the signs to their

> side.

> > > The

> > > > interpretation of sutras is always difficult. However there are

> > > Vriddha

> > > > Karikas that make the situation quite crystal clear. Parashara

> also

> > > uses

> > > > the same terminology but goes on th explain that the adjacent

> rasis

> > > are

> > > > not aspected upon and the explanation of the rasi aspect is

> > > clarified

> > > > beyond doubt by him. Krishnanand Saraswati, in his commentary on

> > > Jaimini

> > > > sutras also express the same opinion. The grahas occupying the

> > > rasis

> > > > also have identical aspects as those of the rasis.

> > > >

> > > > Take care,

> > > >

> > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > >

> > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > > Dear shri Sreenadh & Respected members

> > > > >

> > > > > It is really informative to read your recent historical write

> up's

> > > > > regarding Astrology(Arsha paramparya and

> Parashara/Jaimini).Thank

> > > > > you very much.

> > > > >

> > > > > In similar lines to Argala,i have a fundamental doubt

> regarding

> > > > > Rashi drishtis.

> > > > >

> > > > > Let me quote from the translation done by Shri Surya Narain

> Rao.

> > > > > SU.2.-Abhipasyanti rikshani. The zodiacal signs aspect each

> other

> > > > > (in their front). SU. 3.-Parswabhe cha. Excepting.the next

> > > zodiacal

> > > > > signs to them. SU. 4.- ?ihann ishthascha tadvat. Those planets

> > > which

> > > > > occupy such signs will also aspect the planets found in such

> > > houses.

> > > > > Respected translator makes the following HONEST statement -

> ''The

> > > > > zodiacal signs aspect each other which are in their FRONT. I

> DO

> > > NOT

> > > > > exactly understand what is meant by the word FRONT''.Then he

> says

> > > > > commentators observe - Mesha has Vrishchika,Mithuna has

> > > > > Thula .....Meena has Mithuna as their front signs.

> > > > >

> > > > > Pls see my next mail for personal views.

> > > > >

> > > > > Regds

> > > > > Pradeep

> > > > >

> <%40>

> > > <%40>

> > > > > <%40>, " Sreenadh " <sreesog@>

> > > wrote:

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Dear All,

> > > > > > What is Argala? What is the popular opinion about the same?

> In

> > > > > what

> > > > > > situations it is applicable? Are there any contradictions

> > > between

> > > > > the

> > > > > > definition of Argala by Parasara and Jaimini? What is your

> > > > > opinion?

> > > > > > Please clarify.

> > > > > > Regards,

> > > > > > Sreenadh

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > -------------------------

> > > ------

> > > > >

> > > > > Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.8.9/832 - Release Date:

> > > 6/4/2007 6:43 PM

> > > > >

> > > >

June 9, 2007

Dear Chandrashekhar ji,

I have another question - what proof is there to say that the book

is written by sage Jaimini? The book does not even mention the auther,

then what to say about his guru?

The book 'Jaimini Sutra' is written by a student of some teacher

(let us positively hope that it is Jaimini), and collects and presents

the advice given by the teacher, as indicated by the first sutra of

the text itself. One more thing - where in the book it is mentioned

that the name of the book is 'Jaimini Sutra'?

But the internal proof - the slokas, the terminology, concepts

described etc - clearly tells us that it an effort to present the

concepts presented by Parasara in an abriviated manner. This being the

situation, I too would agree to disagree...

P.S: I am uploading my thoughts on some of the intial slokas of

Jaimini sutra, and the link is provided in the next post.

Love,

Sreenadh

, Chandrashekhar

<chandrashekhar46 wrote:

>

> Dear Sreenadh,

>

> I could have agreed to the contention had Jaimini mentioned somewhere

> about Parashara having been his Guru, as was the practice in ancient

> sages. Even Parashara tells his having given the knowledge received by

> Shaunaka who got it through Garga who in turn received it through

> Narada. But then I am an obstinate old person who was taught to base

his

> judgement of the ancient astrological texts, on both Pramana and tarka.

>

> So let us agree to disagree on this.

>

> Regards,

> Chandrashekhar.

>

> Sreenadh wrote:

> >

> > Dear Chandrasekhar ji,

> > 1)Even though Jaimini sutra provides a special set of principles as

> > compared to the available (printed) BPHS, there are many slokas that

> > supports the same, as available from commentaries of Jaimini sutra

> > and virdha karikas.

> > There are many slokas of Parasara available, about many such

> > concepts that are not present in the printed BPHS, but present in

> > various commentaries of Jaimini sutra.

> >

> > 2) It is not the simple study of Argala concept alone that helps us

> > in reaching the conclusion that " Jaimini sutra is a guide and

> > extension of BPHS, that tries to teach Parasara's concepts " , but

> > rather-

> > * the study of the whole book and its approach

> > * comparison of concepts and words used within it

> > * the methodology of presentation followed in the book

> > and many more.

> > Love,

> > Sreenadh

> >

> > <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > >

> > > Dear Sreenadh,

> > >

> > > But if the two are giving different sets of principles, as

> > indicated by

> > > you in another mail, then how do you verify the veracity of the

> > sutras.

> > > Anyway, I still do not find enough evidence to think that Parashara

> > is

> > > Anargala and Jaimini is Argala. Only Lord Shiva is Anargala and we

> > do

> > > not have access to him.

> > >

> > > Chandrashekhar.

> > >

> > > Sreenadh wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji,

> > > > I think the interpretation of Jaimini sutras become far more

> > easier

> > > > if we find the bolt and the key.

> > > > * The Bolt is: Jaimini sutra is not an independent text, it is a

> > > > guide to BPHS concepts, extending them a bit.

> > > > * The Key is: Refer to BPHS first always for clarity, and then try

> > > > unlocking Jaimini sutra with the same.

> > > >

> > > > P.S: May be BPHS is Anargala and Jaimini sutra is the Argala. )

> > > > Love,

> > > > Sreenadh

> > > >

> > <%40>

> > > > <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > >

> > > > > If you draw a south indian style chart you will find that the

> > signs

> > > > do

> > > > > aspect the ones in front of them. Parshva means side of the body

> > > > and the

> > > > > second sutra tells that they also aspect the signs to their

> > side.

> > > > The

> > > > > interpretation of sutras is always difficult. However there are

> > > > Vriddha

> > > > > Karikas that make the situation quite crystal clear. Parashara

> > also

> > > > uses

> > > > > the same terminology but goes on th explain that the adjacent

> > rasis

> > > > are

> > > > > not aspected upon and the explanation of the rasi aspect is

> > > > clarified

> > > > > beyond doubt by him. Krishnanand Saraswati, in his commentary on

> > > > Jaimini

> > > > > sutras also express the same opinion. The grahas occupying the

> > > > rasis

> > > > > also have identical aspects as those of the rasis.

> > > > >

> > > > > Take care,

> > > > >

> > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > >

> > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Dear shri Sreenadh & Respected members

> > > > > >

> > > > > > It is really informative to read your recent historical write

> > up's

> > > > > > regarding Astrology(Arsha paramparya and

> > Parashara/Jaimini).Thank

> > > > > > you very much.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > In similar lines to Argala,i have a fundamental doubt

> > regarding

> > > > > > Rashi drishtis.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Let me quote from the translation done by Shri Surya Narain

> > Rao.

> > > > > > SU.2.-Abhipasyanti rikshani. The zodiacal signs aspect each

> > other

> > > > > > (in their front). SU. 3.-Parswabhe cha. Excepting.the next

> > > > zodiacal

> > > > > > signs to them. SU. 4.- ?ihann ishthascha tadvat. Those planets

> > > > which

> > > > > > occupy such signs will also aspect the planets found in such

> > > > houses.

> > > > > > Respected translator makes the following HONEST statement -

> > ''The

> > > > > > zodiacal signs aspect each other which are in their FRONT. I

> > DO

> > > > NOT

> > > > > > exactly understand what is meant by the word FRONT''.Then he

> > says

> > > > > > commentators observe - Mesha has Vrishchika,Mithuna has

> > > > > > Thula .....Meena has Mithuna as their front signs.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Pls see my next mail for personal views.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Regds

> > > > > > Pradeep

> > > > > >

> > <%40>

> > > > <%40>

> > > > > > <%40>, " Sreenadh " <sreesog@>

> > > > wrote:

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Dear All,

> > > > > > > What is Argala? What is the popular opinion about the same?

> > In

> > > > > > what

> > > > > > > situations it is applicable? Are there any contradictions

> > > > between

> > > > > > the

> > > > > > > definition of Argala by Parasara and Jaimini? What is your

> > > > > > opinion?

> > > > > > > Please clarify.

> > > > > > > Regards,

> > > > > > > Sreenadh

> > > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > > -------------------------

> > > > ------

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.8.9/832 - Release Date:

> > > > 6/4/2007 6:43 PM

> > > > > >

> > > > >

June 9, 2007

Dear Chandrashekhar ji

Thanks a lot for the diagram.Being a Mechanical engineer i feel you

would had done lots of machine drawing!!.

As i am having only a malayalam translation of BPHS,written by late

Professor Muthuswamy,written in many parts,and as i am not having all

those parts with me here,diagram was new to me.It wasreally

helpful.Infact i had tried to draw a diagram based on directions and

did find a linear link,as i had mentioned in my first mail relating

to this thread.This diagram thus clear my doubts.Interstingly as we

have understood,drishties are based on spatial/physical

disposition.This also confirms why Graha drishti is impossible,in a

diagram holding amsha rashi relations of our Lagna and planets.

Now the next point is Rashi drishti.Suppose Mars is placed in Aries

and Sun is in Leo,then as per definition from sage Mars aspects

Sun.Now let us assume Jupiter is having navamsha in Aries and Saturn

in Leo.As per the explanation given by you,Jupiter should aspect

Saturn.I personally with all due respect have doubts and tends and

prefer a disagreement.Going by the same rules of spatial

arrangement - as Jupiter and Saturn are placed somewhere else they

cannot effect an aspect by virtue of aspects between Aries and

Leo.The placement in those Rashis gives such a capacity.Hope i am

clear.

For the same reason,i have always been supporting K.N.Raojis views

about Karakamsha to be read in Rashi chakra.There are numerous

shlokas relating to Karakamsha,involving aspects of planets.My

personal view is one has to first reach an agreement on whether rashi

drishti or graha drishti is the apt one.I can agree if you say Rashi

drishti is possible as both the drishties are valid.Then there is a

major difference.If we consider this from a navamsha arrangement -

Rashi dristies taken are violating rule as mentioned above.Thus they

have to be the Graha PLACEMENTS in rashi chakra w.r to Karakamsha

lagna ,which is able to cast aspects.

I would also like to point out that i feel,it is Shri Sanjay Rath who

has proposed this theory and such a kind of drishti pattern(isolated

amsha diagrams). But i can say that one will be reluctant to accept

it as from parampara,as there were numerous cases where shri Rath

considered garaha drishti in varga arrangements in the past,before

resorting to rashi drishti,which again is used inappropriately as per

my personal view.

Kindly pardon if have committed any errors here.As you are aware,the

intention is only to gain true knowledge.No matter whetehr i am wrong

or other learned souls.

Respect

Pradeep

, Chandrashekhar

<chandrashekhar46 wrote:

>

> Dear Pradeep,

>

> I have sent the diagram to your personal address, as desired.

> Chandrashekhar.

>

> vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> >

> > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> >

> > Thanks for mail.Kindly send the diagram to vijayadas_pradeep

> > <vijayadas_pradeep%40>

> > as i have opted for reading from the group site.

> >

> > Respect

> > Pradeep

> > <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > >

> > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > The reference to south indian chart is actually to just point

out

> > that

> > > there are more than one style of charts that have to be

considered

> > when

> > > we consider interpretation of abhipashyanti rikshaani. All other

> > rasis

> > > aspecting each other the cardinal signs also aspect each others

> > from

> > > their position of being in a corner. So the side wise view is on

> > the

> > > Rasis not aspected by other group of rasis, which lead to their

> > > aspecting only other cardinal rasis.

> > >

> > > There is a circular diagram that explains this concept of

aspect to

> > > rasis in front and sides, barring the adjacent rasis,

beautifully

> > and I

> > > have tried to draw it for you and it is attached for your

> > information in

> > > .doc format. Only you will have to pardon my limited skills with

> > drawing

> > > tools. The concept is actually elaborated at length by both

> > Parashara

> > > and also in Vriddha karikas. So there is no ambiguity in the

matter.

> > >

> > > Take care,

> > > Chandrashekhar.

> > >

> > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > >

> > > > Thanks for the explanation.Even if we take South Indian

> > chart,there

> > > > is a problem.

> > > > If we say front,then why is Sag not aspecting Aquarius,which

is on

> > > > front,but aspects Meena which comes after Aqua.Similarly

Kanya and

> > > > Karka.similarly there are other concerns.

> > > > As you have mentioned,commentators might have been influenced

by

> > > > south indian style.

> > > >

> > > > Respect

> > > > Pradeep

> > > >

> > <%40>

> > > > <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > >

> > > > > If you draw a south indian style chart you will find that

the

> > signs

> > > > do

> > > > > aspect the ones in front of them. Parshva means side of the

body

> > > > and the

> > > > > second sutra tells that they also aspect the signs to their

> > side.

> > > > The

> > > > > interpretation of sutras is always difficult. However there

are

> > > > Vriddha

> > > > > Karikas that make the situation quite crystal clear.

Parashara

> > also

> > > > uses

> > > > > the same terminology but goes on th explain that the

adjacent

> > rasis

> > > > are

> > > > > not aspected upon and the explanation of the rasi aspect is

> > > > clarified

> > > > > beyond doubt by him. Krishnanand Saraswati, in his

commentary on

> > > > Jaimini

> > > > > sutras also express the same opinion. The grahas occupying

the

> > > > rasis

> > > > > also have identical aspects as those of the rasis.

> > > > >

> > > > > Take care,

> > > > >

> > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > >

> > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Dear shri Sreenadh & Respected members

> > > > > >

> > > > > > It is really informative to read your recent historical

write

> > up's

> > > > > > regarding Astrology(Arsha paramparya and

> > Parashara/Jaimini).Thank

> > > > > > you very much.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > In similar lines to Argala,i have a fundamental doubt

> > regarding

> > > > > > Rashi drishtis.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Let me quote from the translation done by Shri Surya

Narain

> > Rao.

> > > > > > SU.2.-Abhipasyanti rikshani. The zodiacal signs aspect

each

> > other

> > > > > > (in their front). SU. 3.-Parswabhe cha. Excepting.the next

> > > > zodiacal

> > > > > > signs to them. SU. 4.- ?ihann ishthascha tadvat. Those

planets

> > > > which

> > > > > > occupy such signs will also aspect the planets found in

such

> > > > houses.

> > > > > > Respected translator makes the following HONEST

statement -

> > ''The

> > > > > > zodiacal signs aspect each other which are in their

FRONT. I

> > DO

> > > > NOT

> > > > > > exactly understand what is meant by the word FRONT''.Then

he

> > says

> > > > > > commentators observe - Mesha has Vrishchika,Mithuna has

> > > > > > Thula .....Meena has Mithuna as their front signs.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Pls see my next mail for personal views.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Regds

> > > > > > Pradeep

> > > > > >

> > <%40>

> > > > <%40>

> > > > > > <%40>, " Sreenadh "

<sreesog@>

> > > > wrote:

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Dear All,

> > > > > > > What is Argala? What is the popular opinion about the

same?

> > In

> > > > > > what

> > > > > > > situations it is applicable? Are there any

contradictions

> > > > between

> > > > > > the

> > > > > > > definition of Argala by Parasara and Jaimini? What is

your

> > > > > > opinion?

> > > > > > > Please clarify.

> > > > > > > Regards,

> > > > > > > Sreenadh

> > > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > > -------------------------

> > > > ------

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.8.9/832 - Release

Date:

> > > > 6/4/2007 6:43 PM

> > > > > >

> > > > >

June 9, 2007

Dear Sreenadh,

Carrying the logic further what proof is there that the Parashara who

was father of Vyasa wrote the BPHS? Nobody wrote books in those days

they were memorized and carried by word of mouth. Even BPHS does not

mention that being its name.

I think there is a bit of difference between sutras and shlokas. I do

not think there is any evidence that suggests that it is presentation of

concepts of Parashara in abbreviated manner. Could you point to those

sutras that do this?

Chandrashekhar.

Sreenadh wrote:

>

> Dear Chandrashekhar ji,

> I have another question - what proof is there to say that the book

> is written by sage Jaimini? The book does not even mention the auther,

> then what to say about his guru?

> The book 'Jaimini Sutra' is written by a student of some teacher

> (let us positively hope that it is Jaimini), and collects and presents

> the advice given by the teacher, as indicated by the first sutra of

> the text itself. One more thing - where in the book it is mentioned

> that the name of the book is 'Jaimini Sutra'?

> But the internal proof - the slokas, the terminology, concepts

> described etc - clearly tells us that it an effort to present the

> concepts presented by Parasara in an abriviated manner. This being the

> situation, I too would agree to disagree...

> P.S: I am uploading my thoughts on some of the intial slokas of

> Jaimini sutra, and the link is provided in the next post.

> Love,

> Sreenadh

>

> <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> <chandrashekhar46 wrote:

> >

> > Dear Sreenadh,

> >

> > I could have agreed to the contention had Jaimini mentioned somewhere

> > about Parashara having been his Guru, as was the practice in ancient

> > sages. Even Parashara tells his having given the knowledge received by

> > Shaunaka who got it through Garga who in turn received it through

> > Narada. But then I am an obstinate old person who was taught to base

> his

> > judgement of the ancient astrological texts, on both Pramana and tarka.

> >

> > So let us agree to disagree on this.

> >

> > Regards,

> > Chandrashekhar.

> >

> > Sreenadh wrote:

> > >

> > > Dear Chandrasekhar ji,

> > > 1)Even though Jaimini sutra provides a special set of principles as

> > > compared to the available (printed) BPHS, there are many slokas that

> > > supports the same, as available from commentaries of Jaimini sutra

> > > and virdha karikas.

> > > There are many slokas of Parasara available, about many such

> > > concepts that are not present in the printed BPHS, but present in

> > > various commentaries of Jaimini sutra.

> > >

> > > 2) It is not the simple study of Argala concept alone that helps us

> > > in reaching the conclusion that " Jaimini sutra is a guide and

> > > extension of BPHS, that tries to teach Parasara's concepts " , but

> > > rather-

> > > * the study of the whole book and its approach

> > > * comparison of concepts and words used within it

> > > * the methodology of presentation followed in the book

> > > and many more.

> > > Love,

> > > Sreenadh

> > >

> <%40>

> > > <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Dear Sreenadh,

> > > >

> > > > But if the two are giving different sets of principles, as

> > > indicated by

> > > > you in another mail, then how do you verify the veracity of the

> > > sutras.

> > > > Anyway, I still do not find enough evidence to think that Parashara

> > > is

> > > > Anargala and Jaimini is Argala. Only Lord Shiva is Anargala and we

> > > do

> > > > not have access to him.

> > > >

> > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > >

> > > > Sreenadh wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji,

> > > > > I think the interpretation of Jaimini sutras become far more

> > > easier

> > > > > if we find the bolt and the key.

> > > > > * The Bolt is: Jaimini sutra is not an independent text, it is a

> > > > > guide to BPHS concepts, extending them a bit.

> > > > > * The Key is: Refer to BPHS first always for clarity, and then try

> > > > > unlocking Jaimini sutra with the same.

> > > > >

> > > > > P.S: May be BPHS is Anargala and Jaimini sutra is the Argala. )

> > > > > Love,

> > > > > Sreenadh

> > > > >

> <%40>

> > > <%40>

> > > > > <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > > >

> > > > > > If you draw a south indian style chart you will find that the

> > > signs

> > > > > do

> > > > > > aspect the ones in front of them. Parshva means side of the body

> > > > > and the

> > > > > > second sutra tells that they also aspect the signs to their

> > > side.

> > > > > The

> > > > > > interpretation of sutras is always difficult. However there are

> > > > > Vriddha

> > > > > > Karikas that make the situation quite crystal clear. Parashara

> > > also

> > > > > uses

> > > > > > the same terminology but goes on th explain that the adjacent

> > > rasis

> > > > > are

> > > > > > not aspected upon and the explanation of the rasi aspect is

> > > > > clarified

> > > > > > beyond doubt by him. Krishnanand Saraswati, in his commentary on

> > > > > Jaimini

> > > > > > sutras also express the same opinion. The grahas occupying the

> > > > > rasis

> > > > > > also have identical aspects as those of the rasis.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Take care,

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Dear shri Sreenadh & Respected members

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > It is really informative to read your recent historical write

> > > up's

> > > > > > > regarding Astrology(Arsha paramparya and

> > > Parashara/Jaimini).Thank

> > > > > > > you very much.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > In similar lines to Argala,i have a fundamental doubt

> > > regarding

> > > > > > > Rashi drishtis.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Let me quote from the translation done by Shri Surya Narain

> > > Rao.

> > > > > > > SU.2.-Abhipasyanti rikshani. The zodiacal signs aspect each

> > > other

> > > > > > > (in their front). SU. 3.-Parswabhe cha. Excepting.the next

> > > > > zodiacal

> > > > > > > signs to them. SU. 4.- ?ihann ishthascha tadvat. Those planets

> > > > > which

> > > > > > > occupy such signs will also aspect the planets found in such

> > > > > houses.

> > > > > > > Respected translator makes the following HONEST statement -

> > > ''The

> > > > > > > zodiacal signs aspect each other which are in their FRONT. I

> > > DO

> > > > > NOT

> > > > > > > exactly understand what is meant by the word FRONT''.Then he

> > > says

> > > > > > > commentators observe - Mesha has Vrishchika,Mithuna has

> > > > > > > Thula .....Meena has Mithuna as their front signs.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Pls see my next mail for personal views.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Regds

> > > > > > > Pradeep

> > > > > > >

> <%40>

> > > <%40>

> > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > <%40>, " Sreenadh " <sreesog@>

> > > > > wrote:

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Dear All,

> > > > > > > > What is Argala? What is the popular opinion about the same?

> > > In

> > > > > > > what

> > > > > > > > situations it is applicable? Are there any contradictions

> > > > > between

> > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > definition of Argala by Parasara and Jaimini? What is your

> > > > > > > opinion?

> > > > > > > > Please clarify.

> > > > > > > > Regards,

> > > > > > > > Sreenadh

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > -------------------------

> > > > > ------

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.8.9/832 - Release Date:

> > > > > 6/4/2007 6:43 PM

> > > > > > >

> > > > > >

June 9, 2007

Dear Pradeep,

I am glad you got the diagram and could decipher it well.

I think there is some confusion about rasi drishti in your mind. I think

I have also said that the rasi drishti is a mutual static relation

between rasis due to their nature, unaffected by the graha's placement.

If grahas also happen to be in an aspecting rasi then that graha also

aspects, is the dictum. If you look at aspects as influences, that may

be easier to understand. The difference between the graha and rasi

drishti may be looked at this way. If one is standing on the roof of a

building, one can look at the direction one wants to look at and this is

like graha drishti where the aspects are per the nature of the

individual graha irrespective of the rasi occupied. If how ever one is

in a room with only three windows, no matter who you are you can only

look out through those windows only and can see, or in other words

influence, only the area allowed by that room with its own specific

window placement.

So rasi drishti talks about the ability of a rasi to influence some

other rasis and also making the grahas occupying them also to influence

those rasis.

I have already sent you some shlokas that indicate the yogas occurring

without reference to rasis occupied by grahas and only based on the

navamshas occupied by them. If you look at the shloka 10 of

streejatakaadhyaaya you will also see that the results for rasi or

navamsha in the 7th of rasi of various grahas are identical. So the

bhavas on navamshas are obviously seen as identical to that of rasi

chakra and this is chart that I said one can look at on a different

basis than other D-charts. There is also a shloka in Brihatjataka that

indicates that the results told when Chandra is aspected by Surya and

other grahas also are obtained in navamsha and DvaadashaMsha indicating

drishtis in those D-Charts. I am giving the shloka below, for ready

reference. As usual the first and alternate line after that is in

Sanskrit 99 fonts and second line and alternate from it are in URW

Palladio IT fonts. The shloka is from drishti adhayaaya. I would like to

know how Dashaadhyaayi has translated this, as I do not have that text

with me.

haerez]RdlaiïtE> zuÉkrae +ò> zzI tÌt-

horeçarkñadaläçritaiù çubhakaro dåñöaù çaçé tadgata-

ô(<ze tTpitiÉ> suùÑvngEvaR vIi]t> zSyte,

stryaàçe tatpatibhiù suhådbhavanagairvä vékñitaù çasyate|

yTàae´< àitraizvI][)l< tdoeÖadza<ze Sm & t<

yatproktaà pratiräçivékñaëaphalaà taddvädaçäàçe småtaà

suyaR*Ervlaeikte=ip zizin }ey< nva<ze:vt>.19,4.

suryädyairavalokite'pi çaçini jïeyaà naväàçeñvataù||19|4||

You can also find yogas described by Varahamihira about Moon from sama

rasi in mutual aspect to Sun in Vishama rasi leading to some results and

so on. If you think about the fact that both Moon and Sun have only 7th

house aspect as graha drishti, how are those yogas possible, if not for

rasi drishti. Think about this.

I can not comment on views of KNR or Sanjay Rath as everybody has a

right to his own views. I have never held any brief for secret Parampara

as I have never believed that the divine knowledge was meant to be

secret, it being taught to all students in days long gone by.

There is no clear cut reference for the need to read Karakamsha in rasi

chart that I have seen so far. To me the very work Karakamsha means the

amsha occupied by the karaka and amsha is seen in navamsha generally. If

someone points a reference in an astro text making it necessary to see

Karakamsha in rasi chakra only, I could always correct my views, the

weight of authority so quoted, so warranting it.

I have never misunderstood you as I know you for a true seeker of knowledge.

Take care,

Chandrashekhar

vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

>

> Dear Chandrashekhar ji

>

> Thanks a lot for the diagram.Being a Mechanical engineer i feel you

> would had done lots of machine drawing!!.

> As i am having only a malayalam translation of BPHS,written by late

> Professor Muthuswamy,written in many parts,and as i am not having all

> those parts with me here,diagram was new to me.It wasreally

> helpful.Infact i had tried to draw a diagram based on directions and

> did find a linear link,as i had mentioned in my first mail relating

> to this thread.This diagram thus clear my doubts.Interstingly as we

> have understood,drishties are based on spatial/physical

> disposition.This also confirms why Graha drishti is impossible,in a

> diagram holding amsha rashi relations of our Lagna and planets.

>

> Now the next point is Rashi drishti.Suppose Mars is placed in Aries

> and Sun is in Leo,then as per definition from sage Mars aspects

> Sun.Now let us assume Jupiter is having navamsha in Aries and Saturn

> in Leo.As per the explanation given by you,Jupiter should aspect

> Saturn.I personally with all due respect have doubts and tends and

> prefer a disagreement.Going by the same rules of spatial

> arrangement - as Jupiter and Saturn are placed somewhere else they

> cannot effect an aspect by virtue of aspects between Aries and

> Leo.The placement in those Rashis gives such a capacity.Hope i am

> clear.

>

> For the same reason,i have always been supporting K.N.Raojis views

> about Karakamsha to be read in Rashi chakra.There are numerous

> shlokas relating to Karakamsha,involving aspects of planets.My

> personal view is one has to first reach an agreement on whether rashi

> drishti or graha drishti is the apt one.I can agree if you say Rashi

> drishti is possible as both the drishties are valid.Then there is a

> major difference.If we consider this from a navamsha arrangement -

> Rashi dristies taken are violating rule as mentioned above.Thus they

> have to be the Graha PLACEMENTS in rashi chakra w.r to Karakamsha

> lagna ,which is able to cast aspects.

>

> I would also like to point out that i feel,it is Shri Sanjay Rath who

> has proposed this theory and such a kind of drishti pattern(isolated

> amsha diagrams). But i can say that one will be reluctant to accept

> it as from parampara,as there were numerous cases where shri Rath

> considered garaha drishti in varga arrangements in the past,before

> resorting to rashi drishti,which again is used inappropriately as per

> my personal view.

>

> Kindly pardon if have committed any errors here.As you are aware,the

> intention is only to gain true knowledge.No matter whetehr i am wrong

> or other learned souls.

>

> Respect

> Pradeep

>

> <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> <chandrashekhar46 wrote:

> >

> > Dear Pradeep,

> >

> > I have sent the diagram to your personal address, as desired.

> > Chandrashekhar.

> >

> > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > >

> > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > >

> > > Thanks for mail.Kindly send the diagram to vijayadas_pradeep

> > > <vijayadas_pradeep%40>

> > > as i have opted for reading from the group site.

> > >

> > > Respect

> > > Pradeep

> <%40>

> > > <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > The reference to south indian chart is actually to just point

> out

> > > that

> > > > there are more than one style of charts that have to be

> considered

> > > when

> > > > we consider interpretation of abhipashyanti rikshaani. All other

> > > rasis

> > > > aspecting each other the cardinal signs also aspect each others

> > > from

> > > > their position of being in a corner. So the side wise view is on

> > > the

> > > > Rasis not aspected by other group of rasis, which lead to their

> > > > aspecting only other cardinal rasis.

> > > >

> > > > There is a circular diagram that explains this concept of

> aspect to

> > > > rasis in front and sides, barring the adjacent rasis,

> beautifully

> > > and I

> > > > have tried to draw it for you and it is attached for your

> > > information in

> > > > .doc format. Only you will have to pardon my limited skills with

> > > drawing

> > > > tools. The concept is actually elaborated at length by both

> > > Parashara

> > > > and also in Vriddha karikas. So there is no ambiguity in the

> matter.

> > > >

> > > > Take care,

> > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > >

> > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > >

> > > > > Thanks for the explanation.Even if we take South Indian

> > > chart,there

> > > > > is a problem.

> > > > > If we say front,then why is Sag not aspecting Aquarius,which

> is on

> > > > > front,but aspects Meena which comes after Aqua.Similarly

> Kanya and

> > > > > Karka.similarly there are other concerns.

> > > > > As you have mentioned,commentators might have been influenced

> by

> > > > > south indian style.

> > > > >

> > > > > Respect

> > > > > Pradeep

> > > > >

> <%40>

> > > <%40>

> > > > > <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > > >

> > > > > > If you draw a south indian style chart you will find that

> the

> > > signs

> > > > > do

> > > > > > aspect the ones in front of them. Parshva means side of the

> body

> > > > > and the

> > > > > > second sutra tells that they also aspect the signs to their

> > > side.

> > > > > The

> > > > > > interpretation of sutras is always difficult. However there

> are

> > > > > Vriddha

> > > > > > Karikas that make the situation quite crystal clear.

> Parashara

> > > also

> > > > > uses

> > > > > > the same terminology but goes on th explain that the

> adjacent

> > > rasis

> > > > > are

> > > > > > not aspected upon and the explanation of the rasi aspect is

> > > > > clarified

> > > > > > beyond doubt by him. Krishnanand Saraswati, in his

> commentary on

> > > > > Jaimini

> > > > > > sutras also express the same opinion. The grahas occupying

> the

> > > > > rasis

> > > > > > also have identical aspects as those of the rasis.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Take care,

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Dear shri Sreenadh & Respected members

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > It is really informative to read your recent historical

> write

> > > up's

> > > > > > > regarding Astrology(Arsha paramparya and

> > > Parashara/Jaimini).Thank

> > > > > > > you very much.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > In similar lines to Argala,i have a fundamental doubt

> > > regarding

> > > > > > > Rashi drishtis.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Let me quote from the translation done by Shri Surya

> Narain

> > > Rao.

> > > > > > > SU.2.-Abhipasyanti rikshani. The zodiacal signs aspect

> each

> > > other

> > > > > > > (in their front). SU. 3.-Parswabhe cha. Excepting.the next

> > > > > zodiacal

> > > > > > > signs to them. SU. 4.- ?ihann ishthascha tadvat. Those

> planets

> > > > > which

> > > > > > > occupy such signs will also aspect the planets found in

> such

> > > > > houses.

> > > > > > > Respected translator makes the following HONEST

> statement -

> > > ''The

> > > > > > > zodiacal signs aspect each other which are in their

> FRONT. I

> > > DO

> > > > > NOT

> > > > > > > exactly understand what is meant by the word FRONT''.Then

> he

> > > says

> > > > > > > commentators observe - Mesha has Vrishchika,Mithuna has

> > > > > > > Thula .....Meena has Mithuna as their front signs.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Pls see my next mail for personal views.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Regds

> > > > > > > Pradeep

> > > > > > >

> <%40>

> > > <%40>

> > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > <%40>, " Sreenadh "

> <sreesog@>

> > > > > wrote:

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Dear All,

> > > > > > > > What is Argala? What is the popular opinion about the

> same?

> > > In

> > > > > > > what

> > > > > > > > situations it is applicable? Are there any

> contradictions

> > > > > between

> > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > definition of Argala by Parasara and Jaimini? What is

> your

> > > > > > > opinion?

> > > > > > > > Please clarify.

> > > > > > > > Regards,

> > > > > > > > Sreenadh

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > -------------------------

> > > > > ------

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.8.9/832 - Release

> Date:

> > > > > 6/4/2007 6:43 PM

> > > > > > >

> > > > > >

June 10, 2007

Dear Chandrashekhar ji,

It is not Parashara of Mahabharata (the father of Vyasa) who wrote

Parasara Hora. But a Parasara who lived around BC 1400 wrote Parasara

Sidhanta, Parasara Hora and Parasara Samhita, as the proof for the

same is provided by an availabe sloka of Parasara Samhita.

BPHS definitely mentions the names of Parasara and Mitreya, and

since the book is as told by Parasara and that is why the name Brihat

Parasara Hora Sastra is attributed to it.

Coming to Jaimini sutra, the text does not even fulfill the prime

condition for a Sutra text. As per the definition-

" Alpaksharam Aasannigdtham Sutram Sutravido vidu "

[A sutra should contain less number of characters and the meaning of

the sutra should be crystal clear]

Even though the sutras in Jaimini sutra contains less number of

characters, they does not satisfy the second condition the meaning

should be unambiguous and crystal clear.

Look at any other sutra text - such as Brigu Sutra in Astrology,

Sutras of Patanjali in grammar, Yoga Sutras of Patanjali, Chanakya

Sutra etc - you will see the great difference between their approach

and presentation and the mere 'Abbreviation effort' of Jaimini.

Love,

Sreenadh

, Chandrashekhar

<chandrashekhar46 wrote:

>

> Dear Sreenadh,

>

> Carrying the logic further what proof is there that the Parashara who

> was father of Vyasa wrote the BPHS? Nobody wrote books in those days

> they were memorized and carried by word of mouth. Even BPHS does not

> mention that being its name.

>

> I think there is a bit of difference between sutras and shlokas. I do

> not think there is any evidence that suggests that it is

presentation of

> concepts of Parashara in abbreviated manner. Could you point to those

> sutras that do this?

>

> Chandrashekhar.

>

> Sreenadh wrote:

> >

> > Dear Chandrashekhar ji,

> > I have another question - what proof is there to say that the book

> > is written by sage Jaimini? The book does not even mention the auther,

> > then what to say about his guru?

> > The book 'Jaimini Sutra' is written by a student of some teacher

> > (let us positively hope that it is Jaimini), and collects and presents

> > the advice given by the teacher, as indicated by the first sutra of

> > the text itself. One more thing - where in the book it is mentioned

> > that the name of the book is 'Jaimini Sutra'?

> > But the internal proof - the slokas, the terminology, concepts

> > described etc - clearly tells us that it an effort to present the

> > concepts presented by Parasara in an abriviated manner. This being the

> > situation, I too would agree to disagree...

> > P.S: I am uploading my thoughts on some of the intial slokas of

> > Jaimini sutra, and the link is provided in the next post.

> > Love,

> > Sreenadh

> >

> > <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > >

> > > Dear Sreenadh,

> > >

> > > I could have agreed to the contention had Jaimini mentioned

somewhere

> > > about Parashara having been his Guru, as was the practice in ancient

> > > sages. Even Parashara tells his having given the knowledge

received by

> > > Shaunaka who got it through Garga who in turn received it through

> > > Narada. But then I am an obstinate old person who was taught to base

> > his

> > > judgement of the ancient astrological texts, on both Pramana and

tarka.

> > >

> > > So let us agree to disagree on this.

> > >

> > > Regards,

> > > Chandrashekhar.

> > >

> > > Sreenadh wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Dear Chandrasekhar ji,

> > > > 1)Even though Jaimini sutra provides a special set of

principles as

> > > > compared to the available (printed) BPHS, there are many

slokas that

> > > > supports the same, as available from commentaries of Jaimini sutra

> > > > and virdha karikas.

> > > > There are many slokas of Parasara available, about many such

> > > > concepts that are not present in the printed BPHS, but present in

> > > > various commentaries of Jaimini sutra.

> > > >

> > > > 2) It is not the simple study of Argala concept alone that

helps us

> > > > in reaching the conclusion that " Jaimini sutra is a guide and

> > > > extension of BPHS, that tries to teach Parasara's concepts " , but

> > > > rather-

> > > > * the study of the whole book and its approach

> > > > * comparison of concepts and words used within it

> > > > * the methodology of presentation followed in the book

> > > > and many more.

> > > > Love,

> > > > Sreenadh

> > > >

> > <%40>

> > > > <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > > Dear Sreenadh,

> > > > >

> > > > > But if the two are giving different sets of principles, as

> > > > indicated by

> > > > > you in another mail, then how do you verify the veracity of the

> > > > sutras.

> > > > > Anyway, I still do not find enough evidence to think that

Parashara

> > > > is

> > > > > Anargala and Jaimini is Argala. Only Lord Shiva is Anargala

and we

> > > > do

> > > > > not have access to him.

> > > > >

> > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > >

> > > > > Sreenadh wrote:

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji,

> > > > > > I think the interpretation of Jaimini sutras become far more

> > > > easier

> > > > > > if we find the bolt and the key.

> > > > > > * The Bolt is: Jaimini sutra is not an independent text,

it is a

> > > > > > guide to BPHS concepts, extending them a bit.

> > > > > > * The Key is: Refer to BPHS first always for clarity, and

then try

> > > > > > unlocking Jaimini sutra with the same.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > P.S: May be BPHS is Anargala and Jaimini sutra is the

Argala. )

> > > > > > Love,

> > > > > > Sreenadh

> > > > > >

> > <%40>

> > > > <%40>

> > > > > > <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> > > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > If you draw a south indian style chart you will find

that the

> > > > signs

> > > > > > do

> > > > > > > aspect the ones in front of them. Parshva means side of

the body

> > > > > > and the

> > > > > > > second sutra tells that they also aspect the signs to their

> > > > side.

> > > > > > The

> > > > > > > interpretation of sutras is always difficult. However

there are

> > > > > > Vriddha

> > > > > > > Karikas that make the situation quite crystal clear.

Parashara

> > > > also

> > > > > > uses

> > > > > > > the same terminology but goes on th explain that the

adjacent

> > > > rasis

> > > > > > are

> > > > > > > not aspected upon and the explanation of the rasi aspect is

> > > > > > clarified

> > > > > > > beyond doubt by him. Krishnanand Saraswati, in his

commentary on

> > > > > > Jaimini

> > > > > > > sutras also express the same opinion. The grahas

occupying the

> > > > > > rasis

> > > > > > > also have identical aspects as those of the rasis.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Take care,

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Dear shri Sreenadh & Respected members

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > It is really informative to read your recent

historical write

> > > > up's

> > > > > > > > regarding Astrology(Arsha paramparya and

> > > > Parashara/Jaimini).Thank

> > > > > > > > you very much.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > In similar lines to Argala,i have a fundamental doubt

> > > > regarding

> > > > > > > > Rashi drishtis.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Let me quote from the translation done by Shri Surya

Narain

> > > > Rao.

> > > > > > > > SU.2.-Abhipasyanti rikshani. The zodiacal signs aspect

each

> > > > other

> > > > > > > > (in their front). SU. 3.-Parswabhe cha. Excepting.the next

> > > > > > zodiacal

> > > > > > > > signs to them. SU. 4.- ?ihann ishthascha tadvat. Those

planets

> > > > > > which

> > > > > > > > occupy such signs will also aspect the planets found

in such

> > > > > > houses.

> > > > > > > > Respected translator makes the following HONEST

statement -

> > > > ''The

> > > > > > > > zodiacal signs aspect each other which are in their

FRONT. I

> > > > DO

> > > > > > NOT

> > > > > > > > exactly understand what is meant by the word

FRONT''.Then he

> > > > says

> > > > > > > > commentators observe - Mesha has Vrishchika,Mithuna has

> > > > > > > > Thula .....Meena has Mithuna as their front signs.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Pls see my next mail for personal views.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Regds

> > > > > > > > Pradeep

> > > > > > > >

> > <%40>

> > > > <%40>

> > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > <%40>, " Sreenadh "

<sreesog@>

> > > > > > wrote:

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Dear All,

> > > > > > > > > What is Argala? What is the popular opinion about

the same?

> > > > In

> > > > > > > > what

> > > > > > > > > situations it is applicable? Are there any

contradictions

> > > > > > between

> > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > definition of Argala by Parasara and Jaimini? What

is your

> > > > > > > > opinion?

> > > > > > > > > Please clarify.

> > > > > > > > > Regards,

> > > > > > > > > Sreenadh

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > -------------------------

> > > > > > ------

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.8.9/832 -

Release Date:

> > > > > > 6/4/2007 6:43 PM

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

June 10, 2007

Dea Chandrashekhar ji,

I forgot to answer one of your questions-

==>

> I do not think there is any evidence that suggests that it is

> presentation of concepts of Parashara in abbreviated manner.

> Could you point to those sutras that do this?

<==

Almost every sutra of the text Jaimini sutra is proof of the same.

Please read through the commentary for some of the initial slokas of

Jaimini sutra I wrote. The link for the pdf file is-

http://rapidshare.com36169108/Jaimini_Sutra_-_Beginning.pdf

P.S. Note that I have fullfilled my word about " pdf file about the

same " given earlier.

Love,

Sreenadh

, " Sreenadh " <sreesog wrote:

>

> Dear Chandrashekhar ji,

> It is not Parashara of Mahabharata (the father of Vyasa) who wrote

> Parasara Hora. But a Parasara who lived around BC 1400 wrote Parasara

> Sidhanta, Parasara Hora and Parasara Samhita, as the proof for the

> same is provided by an availabe sloka of Parasara Samhita.

> BPHS definitely mentions the names of Parasara and Mitreya, and

> since the book is as told by Parasara and that is why the name Brihat

> Parasara Hora Sastra is attributed to it.

> Coming to Jaimini sutra, the text does not even fulfill the prime

> condition for a Sutra text. As per the definition-

> " Alpaksharam Aasannigdtham Sutram Sutravido vidu "

> [A sutra should contain less number of characters and the meaning of

> the sutra should be crystal clear]

> Even though the sutras in Jaimini sutra contains less number of

> characters, they does not satisfy the second condition the meaning

> should be unambiguous and crystal clear.

> Look at any other sutra text - such as Brigu Sutra in Astrology,

> Sutras of Patanjali in grammar, Yoga Sutras of Patanjali, Chanakya

> Sutra etc - you will see the great difference between their approach

> and presentation and the mere 'Abbreviation effort' of Jaimini.

>

> Love,

> Sreenadh

>

> , Chandrashekhar

> <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> >

> > Dear Sreenadh,

> >

> > Carrying the logic further what proof is there that the Parashara who

> > was father of Vyasa wrote the BPHS? Nobody wrote books in those days

> > they were memorized and carried by word of mouth. Even BPHS does not

> > mention that being its name.

> >

> > I think there is a bit of difference between sutras and shlokas. I do

> > not think there is any evidence that suggests that it is

> presentation of

> > concepts of Parashara in abbreviated manner. Could you point to those

> > sutras that do this?

> >

> > Chandrashekhar.

> >

> > Sreenadh wrote:

> > >

> > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji,

> > > I have another question - what proof is there to say that the book

> > > is written by sage Jaimini? The book does not even mention the

auther,

> > > then what to say about his guru?

> > > The book 'Jaimini Sutra' is written by a student of some teacher

> > > (let us positively hope that it is Jaimini), and collects and

presents

> > > the advice given by the teacher, as indicated by the first sutra of

> > > the text itself. One more thing - where in the book it is mentioned

> > > that the name of the book is 'Jaimini Sutra'?

> > > But the internal proof - the slokas, the terminology, concepts

> > > described etc - clearly tells us that it an effort to present the

> > > concepts presented by Parasara in an abriviated manner. This

being the

> > > situation, I too would agree to disagree...

> > > P.S: I am uploading my thoughts on some of the intial slokas of

> > > Jaimini sutra, and the link is provided in the next post.

> > > Love,

> > > Sreenadh

> > >

> > > <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Dear Sreenadh,

> > > >

> > > > I could have agreed to the contention had Jaimini mentioned

> somewhere

> > > > about Parashara having been his Guru, as was the practice in

ancient

> > > > sages. Even Parashara tells his having given the knowledge

> received by

> > > > Shaunaka who got it through Garga who in turn received it through

> > > > Narada. But then I am an obstinate old person who was taught

to base

> > > his

> > > > judgement of the ancient astrological texts, on both Pramana and

> tarka.

> > > >

> > > > So let us agree to disagree on this.

> > > >

> > > > Regards,

> > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > >

> > > > Sreenadh wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > > Dear Chandrasekhar ji,

> > > > > 1)Even though Jaimini sutra provides a special set of

> principles as

> > > > > compared to the available (printed) BPHS, there are many

> slokas that

> > > > > supports the same, as available from commentaries of Jaimini

sutra

> > > > > and virdha karikas.

> > > > > There are many slokas of Parasara available, about many such

> > > > > concepts that are not present in the printed BPHS, but

present in

> > > > > various commentaries of Jaimini sutra.

> > > > >

> > > > > 2) It is not the simple study of Argala concept alone that

> helps us

> > > > > in reaching the conclusion that " Jaimini sutra is a guide and

> > > > > extension of BPHS, that tries to teach Parasara's concepts " , but

> > > > > rather-

> > > > > * the study of the whole book and its approach

> > > > > * comparison of concepts and words used within it

> > > > > * the methodology of presentation followed in the book

> > > > > and many more.

> > > > > Love,

> > > > > Sreenadh

> > > > >

> > > <%40>

> > > > > <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Dear Sreenadh,

> > > > > >

> > > > > > But if the two are giving different sets of principles, as

> > > > > indicated by

> > > > > > you in another mail, then how do you verify the veracity

of the

> > > > > sutras.

> > > > > > Anyway, I still do not find enough evidence to think that

> Parashara

> > > > > is

> > > > > > Anargala and Jaimini is Argala. Only Lord Shiva is Anargala

> and we

> > > > > do

> > > > > > not have access to him.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Sreenadh wrote:

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji,

> > > > > > > I think the interpretation of Jaimini sutras become far more

> > > > > easier

> > > > > > > if we find the bolt and the key.

> > > > > > > * The Bolt is: Jaimini sutra is not an independent text,

> it is a

> > > > > > > guide to BPHS concepts, extending them a bit.

> > > > > > > * The Key is: Refer to BPHS first always for clarity, and

> then try

> > > > > > > unlocking Jaimini sutra with the same.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > P.S: May be BPHS is Anargala and Jaimini sutra is the

> Argala. )

> > > > > > > Love,

> > > > > > > Sreenadh

> > > > > > >

> > > <%40>

> > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> > > > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > If you draw a south indian style chart you will find

> that the

> > > > > signs

> > > > > > > do

> > > > > > > > aspect the ones in front of them. Parshva means side of

> the body

> > > > > > > and the

> > > > > > > > second sutra tells that they also aspect the signs to

their

> > > > > side.

> > > > > > > The

> > > > > > > > interpretation of sutras is always difficult. However

> there are

> > > > > > > Vriddha

> > > > > > > > Karikas that make the situation quite crystal clear.

> Parashara

> > > > > also

> > > > > > > uses

> > > > > > > > the same terminology but goes on th explain that the

> adjacent

> > > > > rasis

> > > > > > > are

> > > > > > > > not aspected upon and the explanation of the rasi

aspect is

> > > > > > > clarified

> > > > > > > > beyond doubt by him. Krishnanand Saraswati, in his

> commentary on

> > > > > > > Jaimini

> > > > > > > > sutras also express the same opinion. The grahas

> occupying the

> > > > > > > rasis

> > > > > > > > also have identical aspects as those of the rasis.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Take care,

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Dear shri Sreenadh & Respected members

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > It is really informative to read your recent

> historical write

> > > > > up's

> > > > > > > > > regarding Astrology(Arsha paramparya and

> > > > > Parashara/Jaimini).Thank

> > > > > > > > > you very much.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > In similar lines to Argala,i have a fundamental doubt

> > > > > regarding

> > > > > > > > > Rashi drishtis.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Let me quote from the translation done by Shri Surya

> Narain

> > > > > Rao.

> > > > > > > > > SU.2.-Abhipasyanti rikshani. The zodiacal signs aspect

> each

> > > > > other

> > > > > > > > > (in their front). SU. 3.-Parswabhe cha.

Excepting.the next

> > > > > > > zodiacal

> > > > > > > > > signs to them. SU. 4.- ?ihann ishthascha tadvat. Those

> planets

> > > > > > > which

> > > > > > > > > occupy such signs will also aspect the planets found

> in such

> > > > > > > houses.

> > > > > > > > > Respected translator makes the following HONEST

> statement -

> > > > > ''The

> > > > > > > > > zodiacal signs aspect each other which are in their

> FRONT. I

> > > > > DO

> > > > > > > NOT

> > > > > > > > > exactly understand what is meant by the word

> FRONT''.Then he

> > > > > says

> > > > > > > > > commentators observe - Mesha has Vrishchika,Mithuna has

> > > > > > > > > Thula .....Meena has Mithuna as their front signs.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Pls see my next mail for personal views.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Regds

> > > > > > > > > Pradeep

> > > > > > > > >

> > > <%40>

> > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > <%40>, " Sreenadh "

> <sreesog@>

> > > > > > > wrote:

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Dear All,

> > > > > > > > > > What is Argala? What is the popular opinion about

> the same?

> > > > > In

> > > > > > > > > what

> > > > > > > > > > situations it is applicable? Are there any

> contradictions

> > > > > > > between

> > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > definition of Argala by Parasara and Jaimini? What

> is your

> > > > > > > > > opinion?

> > > > > > > > > > Please clarify.

> > > > > > > > > > Regards,

> > > > > > > > > > Sreenadh

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

-------------------------

> > > > > > > ------

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.8.9/832 -

> Release Date:

> > > > > > > 6/4/2007 6:43 PM

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

June 10, 2007

Dear Sreenadh,

I think it has been mentioned by the early acharyas of Kashi

Vishwavidyalaya, who compiled the original shlokas of the BPHS, that the

manuscripts that they based BPHS on were not titled " Brihad Paraashara

Hora Shastra " . The conjecture of Parashara who gave the current text

being of 1400 b.c. must remain a conjecture as the text mentions that

Yudhishthira is having a certain yoga and enumerates others who had

similar yogas in the text indicating him being alive at the time of

Mahabharata. Mahabharata ends with death of Lord Krishna or soon after

that which is around 3102 B. C. If this is not acceptable then the

contents of the texts must have been collection of myriad granthas and

nothing more. If you could quote the shloka in Paraashari that gives the

date of the text and it having been written by Parashara I would be

obliged much. The edition which gives those shlokas may also be quoted,

so that checking them will be easy.

The definition of sutras given by you is right. But the clarity is for

ones who are well versed in that science and not for everyone, as

guarding the divine knowledge was the reason sutras have brevity. So I

do not think any Sanskrit scholar ( I am not one) would declare them

anything but sutras. I have sought opinion of the learned in that

language and their uniform opinion is that they are sutras.

That is why I said let us agree to disagree.

Chandrashekhar.

Sreenadh wrote:

>

> Dear Chandrashekhar ji,

> It is not Parashara of Mahabharata (the father of Vyasa) who wrote

> Parasara Hora. But a Parasara who lived around BC 1400 wrote Parasara

> Sidhanta, Parasara Hora and Parasara Samhita, as the proof for the

> same is provided by an availabe sloka of Parasara Samhita.

> BPHS definitely mentions the names of Parasara and Mitreya, and

> since the book is as told by Parasara and that is why the name Brihat

> Parasara Hora Sastra is attributed to it.

> Coming to Jaimini sutra, the text does not even fulfill the prime

> condition for a Sutra text. As per the definition-

> " Alpaksharam Aasannigdtham Sutram Sutravido vidu "

> [A sutra should contain less number of characters and the meaning of

> the sutra should be crystal clear]

> Even though the sutras in Jaimini sutra contains less number of

> characters, they does not satisfy the second condition the meaning

> should be unambiguous and crystal clear.

> Look at any other sutra text - such as Brigu Sutra in Astrology,

> Sutras of Patanjali in grammar, Yoga Sutras of Patanjali, Chanakya

> Sutra etc - you will see the great difference between their approach

> and presentation and the mere 'Abbreviation effort' of Jaimini.

>

> Love,

> Sreenadh

>

> <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> <chandrashekhar46 wrote:

> >

> > Dear Sreenadh,

> >

> > Carrying the logic further what proof is there that the Parashara who

> > was father of Vyasa wrote the BPHS? Nobody wrote books in those days

> > they were memorized and carried by word of mouth. Even BPHS does not

> > mention that being its name.

> >

> > I think there is a bit of difference between sutras and shlokas. I do

> > not think there is any evidence that suggests that it is

> presentation of

> > concepts of Parashara in abbreviated manner. Could you point to those

> > sutras that do this?

> >

> > Chandrashekhar.

> >

> > Sreenadh wrote:

> > >

> > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji,

> > > I have another question - what proof is there to say that the book

> > > is written by sage Jaimini? The book does not even mention the auther,

> > > then what to say about his guru?

> > > The book 'Jaimini Sutra' is written by a student of some teacher

> > > (let us positively hope that it is Jaimini), and collects and presents

> > > the advice given by the teacher, as indicated by the first sutra of

> > > the text itself. One more thing - where in the book it is mentioned

> > > that the name of the book is 'Jaimini Sutra'?

> > > But the internal proof - the slokas, the terminology, concepts

> > > described etc - clearly tells us that it an effort to present the

> > > concepts presented by Parasara in an abriviated manner. This being the

> > > situation, I too would agree to disagree...

> > > P.S: I am uploading my thoughts on some of the intial slokas of

> > > Jaimini sutra, and the link is provided in the next post.

> > > Love,

> > > Sreenadh

> > >

> <%40>

> > > <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Dear Sreenadh,

> > > >

> > > > I could have agreed to the contention had Jaimini mentioned

> somewhere

> > > > about Parashara having been his Guru, as was the practice in ancient

> > > > sages. Even Parashara tells his having given the knowledge

> received by

> > > > Shaunaka who got it through Garga who in turn received it through

> > > > Narada. But then I am an obstinate old person who was taught to base

> > > his

> > > > judgement of the ancient astrological texts, on both Pramana and

> tarka.

> > > >

> > > > So let us agree to disagree on this.

> > > >

> > > > Regards,

> > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > >

> > > > Sreenadh wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > > Dear Chandrasekhar ji,

> > > > > 1)Even though Jaimini sutra provides a special set of

> principles as

> > > > > compared to the available (printed) BPHS, there are many

> slokas that

> > > > > supports the same, as available from commentaries of Jaimini sutra

> > > > > and virdha karikas.

> > > > > There are many slokas of Parasara available, about many such

> > > > > concepts that are not present in the printed BPHS, but present in

> > > > > various commentaries of Jaimini sutra.

> > > > >

> > > > > 2) It is not the simple study of Argala concept alone that

> helps us

> > > > > in reaching the conclusion that " Jaimini sutra is a guide and

> > > > > extension of BPHS, that tries to teach Parasara's concepts " , but

> > > > > rather-

> > > > > * the study of the whole book and its approach

> > > > > * comparison of concepts and words used within it

> > > > > * the methodology of presentation followed in the book

> > > > > and many more.

> > > > > Love,

> > > > > Sreenadh

> > > > >

> <%40>

> > > <%40>

> > > > > <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Dear Sreenadh,

> > > > > >

> > > > > > But if the two are giving different sets of principles, as

> > > > > indicated by

> > > > > > you in another mail, then how do you verify the veracity of the

> > > > > sutras.

> > > > > > Anyway, I still do not find enough evidence to think that

> Parashara

> > > > > is

> > > > > > Anargala and Jaimini is Argala. Only Lord Shiva is Anargala

> and we

> > > > > do

> > > > > > not have access to him.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Sreenadh wrote:

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji,

> > > > > > > I think the interpretation of Jaimini sutras become far more

> > > > > easier

> > > > > > > if we find the bolt and the key.

> > > > > > > * The Bolt is: Jaimini sutra is not an independent text,

> it is a

> > > > > > > guide to BPHS concepts, extending them a bit.

> > > > > > > * The Key is: Refer to BPHS first always for clarity, and

> then try

> > > > > > > unlocking Jaimini sutra with the same.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > P.S: May be BPHS is Anargala and Jaimini sutra is the

> Argala. )

> > > > > > > Love,

> > > > > > > Sreenadh

> > > > > > >

> <%40>

> > > <%40>

> > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> > > > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > If you draw a south indian style chart you will find

> that the

> > > > > signs

> > > > > > > do

> > > > > > > > aspect the ones in front of them. Parshva means side of

> the body

> > > > > > > and the

> > > > > > > > second sutra tells that they also aspect the signs to their

> > > > > side.

> > > > > > > The

> > > > > > > > interpretation of sutras is always difficult. However

> there are

> > > > > > > Vriddha

> > > > > > > > Karikas that make the situation quite crystal clear.

> Parashara

> > > > > also

> > > > > > > uses

> > > > > > > > the same terminology but goes on th explain that the

> adjacent

> > > > > rasis

> > > > > > > are

> > > > > > > > not aspected upon and the explanation of the rasi aspect is

> > > > > > > clarified

> > > > > > > > beyond doubt by him. Krishnanand Saraswati, in his

> commentary on

> > > > > > > Jaimini

> > > > > > > > sutras also express the same opinion. The grahas

> occupying the

> > > > > > > rasis

> > > > > > > > also have identical aspects as those of the rasis.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Take care,

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Dear shri Sreenadh & Respected members

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > It is really informative to read your recent

> historical write

> > > > > up's

> > > > > > > > > regarding Astrology(Arsha paramparya and

> > > > > Parashara/Jaimini).Thank

> > > > > > > > > you very much.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > In similar lines to Argala,i have a fundamental doubt

> > > > > regarding

> > > > > > > > > Rashi drishtis.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Let me quote from the translation done by Shri Surya

> Narain

> > > > > Rao.

> > > > > > > > > SU.2.-Abhipasyanti rikshani. The zodiacal signs aspect

> each

> > > > > other

> > > > > > > > > (in their front). SU. 3.-Parswabhe cha. Excepting.the next

> > > > > > > zodiacal

> > > > > > > > > signs to them. SU. 4.- ?ihann ishthascha tadvat. Those

> planets

> > > > > > > which

> > > > > > > > > occupy such signs will also aspect the planets found

> in such

> > > > > > > houses.

> > > > > > > > > Respected translator makes the following HONEST

> statement -

> > > > > ''The

> > > > > > > > > zodiacal signs aspect each other which are in their

> FRONT. I

> > > > > DO

> > > > > > > NOT

> > > > > > > > > exactly understand what is meant by the word

> FRONT''.Then he

> > > > > says

> > > > > > > > > commentators observe - Mesha has Vrishchika,Mithuna has

> > > > > > > > > Thula .....Meena has Mithuna as their front signs.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Pls see my next mail for personal views.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Regds

> > > > > > > > > Pradeep

> > > > > > > > >

> <%40>

> > > <%40>

> > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > <%40>, " Sreenadh "

> <sreesog@>

> > > > > > > wrote:

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Dear All,

> > > > > > > > > > What is Argala? What is the popular opinion about

> the same?

> > > > > In

> > > > > > > > > what

> > > > > > > > > > situations it is applicable? Are there any

> contradictions

> > > > > > > between

> > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > definition of Argala by Parasara and Jaimini? What

> is your

> > > > > > > > > opinion?

> > > > > > > > > > Please clarify.

> > > > > > > > > > Regards,

> > > > > > > > > > Sreenadh

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > -------------------------

> > > > > > > ------

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.8.9/832 -

> Release Date:

> > > > > > > 6/4/2007 6:43 PM

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

June 10, 2007

Dear Sreenadh,

I have read the file and have sent you an answer. I do not find any

reason to change my opinion after reading the file as what is stated is

more of a conjecture than logical deduction.

I do not find the Jaimini sutra telling about argala of 4th house being

blocked by 11th house virodh agrala therein. Can you send those sutras

with your interpretation?

So let us agree to disagree.

regards,

Chandrashekhar.

Sreenadh wrote:

>

> Dea Chandrashekhar ji,

> I forgot to answer one of your questions-

> ==>

> > I do not think there is any evidence that suggests that it is

> > presentation of concepts of Parashara in abbreviated manner.

> > Could you point to those sutras that do this?

> <==

> Almost every sutra of the text Jaimini sutra is proof of the same.

> Please read through the commentary for some of the initial slokas of

> Jaimini sutra I wrote. The link for the pdf file is-

> http://rapidshare.com36169108/Jaimini_Sutra_-_Beginning.pdf

> <http://rapidshare.com36169108/Jaimini_Sutra_-_Beginning.pdf>

>

> P.S. Note that I have fullfilled my word about " pdf file about the

> same " given earlier.

> Love,

> Sreenadh

>

> <%40>, " Sreenadh " <sreesog wrote:

> >

> > Dear Chandrashekhar ji,

> > It is not Parashara of Mahabharata (the father of Vyasa) who wrote

> > Parasara Hora. But a Parasara who lived around BC 1400 wrote Parasara

> > Sidhanta, Parasara Hora and Parasara Samhita, as the proof for the

> > same is provided by an availabe sloka of Parasara Samhita.

> > BPHS definitely mentions the names of Parasara and Mitreya, and

> > since the book is as told by Parasara and that is why the name Brihat

> > Parasara Hora Sastra is attributed to it.

> > Coming to Jaimini sutra, the text does not even fulfill the prime

> > condition for a Sutra text. As per the definition-

> > " Alpaksharam Aasannigdtham Sutram Sutravido vidu "

> > [A sutra should contain less number of characters and the meaning of

> > the sutra should be crystal clear]

> > Even though the sutras in Jaimini sutra contains less number of

> > characters, they does not satisfy the second condition the meaning

> > should be unambiguous and crystal clear.

> > Look at any other sutra text - such as Brigu Sutra in Astrology,

> > Sutras of Patanjali in grammar, Yoga Sutras of Patanjali, Chanakya

> > Sutra etc - you will see the great difference between their approach

> > and presentation and the mere 'Abbreviation effort' of Jaimini.

> >

> > Love,

> > Sreenadh

> >

> <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > >

> > > Dear Sreenadh,

> > >

> > > Carrying the logic further what proof is there that the Parashara who

> > > was father of Vyasa wrote the BPHS? Nobody wrote books in those days

> > > they were memorized and carried by word of mouth. Even BPHS does not

> > > mention that being its name.

> > >

> > > I think there is a bit of difference between sutras and shlokas. I do

> > > not think there is any evidence that suggests that it is

> > presentation of

> > > concepts of Parashara in abbreviated manner. Could you point to those

> > > sutras that do this?

> > >

> > > Chandrashekhar.

> > >

> > > Sreenadh wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji,

> > > > I have another question - what proof is there to say that the book

> > > > is written by sage Jaimini? The book does not even mention the

> auther,

> > > > then what to say about his guru?

> > > > The book 'Jaimini Sutra' is written by a student of some teacher

> > > > (let us positively hope that it is Jaimini), and collects and

> presents

> > > > the advice given by the teacher, as indicated by the first sutra of

> > > > the text itself. One more thing - where in the book it is mentioned

> > > > that the name of the book is 'Jaimini Sutra'?

> > > > But the internal proof - the slokas, the terminology, concepts

> > > > described etc - clearly tells us that it an effort to present the

> > > > concepts presented by Parasara in an abriviated manner. This

> being the

> > > > situation, I too would agree to disagree...

> > > > P.S: I am uploading my thoughts on some of the intial slokas of

> > > > Jaimini sutra, and the link is provided in the next post.

> > > > Love,

> > > > Sreenadh

> > > >

> <%40>

> > > > <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > > Dear Sreenadh,

> > > > >

> > > > > I could have agreed to the contention had Jaimini mentioned

> > somewhere

> > > > > about Parashara having been his Guru, as was the practice in

> ancient

> > > > > sages. Even Parashara tells his having given the knowledge

> > received by

> > > > > Shaunaka who got it through Garga who in turn received it through

> > > > > Narada. But then I am an obstinate old person who was taught

> to base

> > > > his

> > > > > judgement of the ancient astrological texts, on both Pramana and

> > tarka.

> > > > >

> > > > > So let us agree to disagree on this.

> > > > >

> > > > > Regards,

> > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > >

> > > > > Sreenadh wrote:

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Dear Chandrasekhar ji,

> > > > > > 1)Even though Jaimini sutra provides a special set of

> > principles as

> > > > > > compared to the available (printed) BPHS, there are many

> > slokas that

> > > > > > supports the same, as available from commentaries of Jaimini

> sutra

> > > > > > and virdha karikas.

> > > > > > There are many slokas of Parasara available, about many such

> > > > > > concepts that are not present in the printed BPHS, but

> present in

> > > > > > various commentaries of Jaimini sutra.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > 2) It is not the simple study of Argala concept alone that

> > helps us

> > > > > > in reaching the conclusion that " Jaimini sutra is a guide and

> > > > > > extension of BPHS, that tries to teach Parasara's concepts " , but

> > > > > > rather-

> > > > > > * the study of the whole book and its approach

> > > > > > * comparison of concepts and words used within it

> > > > > > * the methodology of presentation followed in the book

> > > > > > and many more.

> > > > > > Love,

> > > > > > Sreenadh

> > > > > >

> <%40>

> > > > <%40>

> > > > > > <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> > > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Dear Sreenadh,

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > But if the two are giving different sets of principles, as

> > > > > > indicated by

> > > > > > > you in another mail, then how do you verify the veracity

> of the

> > > > > > sutras.

> > > > > > > Anyway, I still do not find enough evidence to think that

> > Parashara

> > > > > > is

> > > > > > > Anargala and Jaimini is Argala. Only Lord Shiva is Anargala

> > and we

> > > > > > do

> > > > > > > not have access to him.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Sreenadh wrote:

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji,

> > > > > > > > I think the interpretation of Jaimini sutras become far more

> > > > > > easier

> > > > > > > > if we find the bolt and the key.

> > > > > > > > * The Bolt is: Jaimini sutra is not an independent text,

> > it is a

> > > > > > > > guide to BPHS concepts, extending them a bit.

> > > > > > > > * The Key is: Refer to BPHS first always for clarity, and

> > then try

> > > > > > > > unlocking Jaimini sutra with the same.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > P.S: May be BPHS is Anargala and Jaimini sutra is the

> > Argala. )

> > > > > > > > Love,

> > > > > > > > Sreenadh

> > > > > > > >

> <%40>

> > > > <%40>

> > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> > > > > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > If you draw a south indian style chart you will find

> > that the

> > > > > > signs

> > > > > > > > do

> > > > > > > > > aspect the ones in front of them. Parshva means side of

> > the body

> > > > > > > > and the

> > > > > > > > > second sutra tells that they also aspect the signs to

> their

> > > > > > side.

> > > > > > > > The

> > > > > > > > > interpretation of sutras is always difficult. However

> > there are

> > > > > > > > Vriddha

> > > > > > > > > Karikas that make the situation quite crystal clear.

> > Parashara

> > > > > > also

> > > > > > > > uses

> > > > > > > > > the same terminology but goes on th explain that the

> > adjacent

> > > > > > rasis

> > > > > > > > are

> > > > > > > > > not aspected upon and the explanation of the rasi

> aspect is

> > > > > > > > clarified

> > > > > > > > > beyond doubt by him. Krishnanand Saraswati, in his

> > commentary on

> > > > > > > > Jaimini

> > > > > > > > > sutras also express the same opinion. The grahas

> > occupying the

> > > > > > > > rasis

> > > > > > > > > also have identical aspects as those of the rasis.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Take care,

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Dear shri Sreenadh & Respected members

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > It is really informative to read your recent

> > historical write

> > > > > > up's

> > > > > > > > > > regarding Astrology(Arsha paramparya and

> > > > > > Parashara/Jaimini).Thank

> > > > > > > > > > you very much.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > In similar lines to Argala,i have a fundamental doubt

> > > > > > regarding

> > > > > > > > > > Rashi drishtis.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Let me quote from the translation done by Shri Surya

> > Narain

> > > > > > Rao.

> > > > > > > > > > SU.2.-Abhipasyanti rikshani. The zodiacal signs aspect

> > each

> > > > > > other

> > > > > > > > > > (in their front). SU. 3.-Parswabhe cha.

> Excepting.the next

> > > > > > > > zodiacal

> > > > > > > > > > signs to them. SU. 4.- ?ihann ishthascha tadvat. Those

> > planets

> > > > > > > > which

> > > > > > > > > > occupy such signs will also aspect the planets found

> > in such

> > > > > > > > houses.

> > > > > > > > > > Respected translator makes the following HONEST

> > statement -

> > > > > > ''The

> > > > > > > > > > zodiacal signs aspect each other which are in their

> > FRONT. I

> > > > > > DO

> > > > > > > > NOT

> > > > > > > > > > exactly understand what is meant by the word

> > FRONT''.Then he

> > > > > > says

> > > > > > > > > > commentators observe - Mesha has Vrishchika,Mithuna has

> > > > > > > > > > Thula .....Meena has Mithuna as their front signs.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Pls see my next mail for personal views.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Regds

> > > > > > > > > > Pradeep

> > > > > > > > > >

> <%40>

> > > > <%40>

> > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > <%40>, " Sreenadh "

> > <sreesog@>

> > > > > > > > wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Dear All,

> > > > > > > > > > > What is Argala? What is the popular opinion about

> > the same?

> > > > > > In

> > > > > > > > > > what

> > > > > > > > > > > situations it is applicable? Are there any

> > contradictions

> > > > > > > > between

> > > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > definition of Argala by Parasara and Jaimini? What

> > is your

> > > > > > > > > > opinion?

> > > > > > > > > > > Please clarify.

> > > > > > > > > > > Regards,

> > > > > > > > > > > Sreenadh

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> -------------------------

> > > > > > > > ------

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.8.9/832 -

> > Release Date:

> > > > > > > > 6/4/2007 6:43 PM

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

June 10, 2007

Dear Chandrashekhar ji

Thanks for the explanations on Rashi drishti.But some how i feel,i

have not been clear enough.I have understood the fact that ,it is the

rashis that decide the drishti and grahas placed can aspect because

of the said rashi drishti.No dispute here.Kindly see the examples i

have provided.

Aries aspect Leo.Jupiter and Saturn are not placed there.As per

definition of Rashi drishti,only the grahas placed there can aspect

because of aspects between dispositing rashis.Hope you understand.In

the shlokas from dashadhyayi it has been explained that grahas have

amshaka in meshadi dwadasha ksehthras.Rashi drishti talks about

planets placed in the Rashi and not those having amshaka sambandha

there.

Also it is mentioned in dashadhyayi,that some acharyas like jeeva

sharma says kemadruma,does not happen if there is a graha in chandra

kendra or in chandra NAVAMSHAKA rashi.Also for Sunabha etc if a

planet is placed in 2/12 etc from Chandra NAVAMSHAKA Rashi -

explaining how navamsha/rashi are related and how they are to be

interpreted.

Regarding your shloka - It is mentioned that,check the hora in which

chandra is placed(it can be of surya or chandra ).Drishti from

planets in that Hora is good for Chandra.Similarly drishti from

drekkanadhipathi of Chandra is good.Similarly from planets placed in

the friendly kshethras of chandra is good.

Also it says,the results for aspects to chandra having dwadashamshaka

in meshadi dwadasha rashis are the same as when placed in those

rashis.In all these places and from numerous shlokas it has been made

clear that amshaka is happening within the same rashi chakra and

therefore one will have no confusion in attributing drishties,as they

are seen in rashi chakra.

Karakamsha

There is no place where it is mentioned that results are to be read

from navamsha arrangement.When we read the texts in full we see how

the amsha of a graha and aspect on them are studied.Karakamsha is

again the amsha of a planet.A Bhava can only be studied with

reference to a Rashi.This Rashi can be Karakamsha lagna,navamsha

lagna etc.This is explained better in the following shloka.As you

know one learned Guru had tried to get away with the KA usage amshaka

and amsha.They are purely pointing to frame of reference -

Bhaumarkshe ,Bhaumashe and LagnamshaKA rashi explains this.

Sthree jatakadhyaya - 10th Shloka.

As i have said before,numbers 1/4/7 etc are representing the order of

tattwas in which vargas of a Rashi are constituted.This is another

reason why Bhavat Bhavam is possible.Every nth rashi from a reference

(chandra lagna,karakamsha lagna etc )have a particular significance

and i have no dispute here.So is the case with Navamsha Lagna.That is

why i have said one can see 1,7,10 etc in rashi chakra from Lagna

navamsha.

In the 10th shloka in Stree jatakadhyaya too the case is no

different.One has to find if the amshaka of the 7th from lagnamsha is

falling in Kuja kshethra.Check if Shanis is aspecting this

Kujakshethra - Yoni Roga results.Whether you count from Rashi or

navamsha it gives the same result - but the important point to note

is 7th from lagna navamsha reference points to wife.It falls in a

malefic kshethra and has malefic drishti.Acharya also asked us to

compare the strengths of 7th bhava as well as the above said

kshethra.Stronger one prevails.This similar to lagna rashi having

strength or lagnamshaka rashi having strength.Only difference is

strength of 7th from lagnamshaka rashi is considered as 7th refers

to wife.Bhavat Bhavam from lagna navamsha.Aspect is seen from shani

to the said Kuja kshethra.

I feel the main confusion that we are having is because of not

treating amshas as amshaka sambandhas within the same 12 Rashis.This

has been clearly explained by the texts that i read.

Thanks for the trust that you have placed in me

Respect

Pradeep

, Chandrashekhar

<chandrashekhar46 wrote:

>

> Dear Pradeep,

>

> I am glad you got the diagram and could decipher it well.

>

> I think there is some confusion about rasi drishti in your mind. I

think

> I have also said that the rasi drishti is a mutual static relation

> between rasis due to their nature, unaffected by the graha's

placement.

> If grahas also happen to be in an aspecting rasi then that graha

also

> aspects, is the dictum. If you look at aspects as influences, that

may

> be easier to understand. The difference between the graha and rasi

> drishti may be looked at this way. If one is standing on the roof

of a

> building, one can look at the direction one wants to look at and

this is

> like graha drishti where the aspects are per the nature of the

> individual graha irrespective of the rasi occupied. If how ever one

is

> in a room with only three windows, no matter who you are you can

only

> look out through those windows only and can see, or in other words

> influence, only the area allowed by that room with its own specific

> window placement.

>

> So rasi drishti talks about the ability of a rasi to influence

some

> other rasis and also making the grahas occupying them also to

influence

> those rasis.

>

> I have already sent you some shlokas that indicate the yogas

occurring

> without reference to rasis occupied by grahas and only based on the

> navamshas occupied by them. If you look at the shloka 10 of

> streejatakaadhyaaya you will also see that the results for rasi or

> navamsha in the 7th of rasi of various grahas are identical. So the

> bhavas on navamshas are obviously seen as identical to that of rasi

> chakra and this is chart that I said one can look at on a different

> basis than other D-charts. There is also a shloka in Brihatjataka

that

> indicates that the results told when Chandra is aspected by Surya

and

> other grahas also are obtained in navamsha and DvaadashaMsha

indicating

> drishtis in those D-Charts. I am giving the shloka below, for ready

> reference. As usual the first and alternate line after that is in

> Sanskrit 99 fonts and second line and alternate from it are in URW

> Palladio IT fonts. The shloka is from drishti adhayaaya. I would

like to

> know how Dashaadhyaayi has translated this, as I do not have that

text

> with me.

>

> haerez]RdlaiïtE> zuÉkrae +ò> zzI tÌt-

> horeçarkñadaläçritaiù çubhakaro dåñöaù çaçé tadgata-

> ô(<ze tTpitiÉ> suùÑvngEvaR vIi]t> zSyte,

> stryaàçe tatpatibhiù suhådbhavanagairvä vékñitaù çasyate|

> yTàae´< àitraizvI][)l< tdoeÖadza<ze Sm & t<

> yatproktaà pratiräçivékñaëaphalaà taddvädaçäàçe småtaà

> suyaR*Ervlaeikte=ip zizin }ey< nva<ze:vt>.19,4.

> suryädyairavalokite'pi çaçini jïeyaà naväàçeñvataù||19|4||

>

> You can also find yogas described by Varahamihira about Moon from

sama

> rasi in mutual aspect to Sun in Vishama rasi leading to some

results and

> so on. If you think about the fact that both Moon and Sun have only

7th

> house aspect as graha drishti, how are those yogas possible, if not

for

> rasi drishti. Think about this.

>

> I can not comment on views of KNR or Sanjay Rath as everybody has a

> right to his own views. I have never held any brief for secret

Parampara

> as I have never believed that the divine knowledge was meant to be

> secret, it being taught to all students in days long gone by.

>

> There is no clear cut reference for the need to read Karakamsha in

rasi

> chart that I have seen so far. To me the very work Karakamsha means

the

> amsha occupied by the karaka and amsha is seen in navamsha

generally. If

> someone points a reference in an astro text making it necessary to

see

> Karakamsha in rasi chakra only, I could always correct my views,

the

> weight of authority so quoted, so warranting it.

>

> I have never misunderstood you as I know you for a true seeker of

knowledge.

>

> Take care,

> Chandrashekhar

>

> vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> >

> > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> >

> > Thanks a lot for the diagram.Being a Mechanical engineer i feel

you

> > would had done lots of machine drawing!!.

> > As i am having only a malayalam translation of BPHS,written by

late

> > Professor Muthuswamy,written in many parts,and as i am not having

all

> > those parts with me here,diagram was new to me.It wasreally

> > helpful.Infact i had tried to draw a diagram based on directions

and

> > did find a linear link,as i had mentioned in my first mail

relating

> > to this thread.This diagram thus clear my doubts.Interstingly as

we

> > have understood,drishties are based on spatial/physical

> > disposition.This also confirms why Graha drishti is impossible,in

a

> > diagram holding amsha rashi relations of our Lagna and planets.

> >

> > Now the next point is Rashi drishti.Suppose Mars is placed in

Aries

> > and Sun is in Leo,then as per definition from sage Mars aspects

> > Sun.Now let us assume Jupiter is having navamsha in Aries and

Saturn

> > in Leo.As per the explanation given by you,Jupiter should aspect

> > Saturn.I personally with all due respect have doubts and tends and

> > prefer a disagreement.Going by the same rules of spatial

> > arrangement - as Jupiter and Saturn are placed somewhere else they

> > cannot effect an aspect by virtue of aspects between Aries and

> > Leo.The placement in those Rashis gives such a capacity.Hope i am

> > clear.

> >

> > For the same reason,i have always been supporting K.N.Raojis views

> > about Karakamsha to be read in Rashi chakra.There are numerous

> > shlokas relating to Karakamsha,involving aspects of planets.My

> > personal view is one has to first reach an agreement on whether

rashi

> > drishti or graha drishti is the apt one.I can agree if you say

Rashi

> > drishti is possible as both the drishties are valid.Then there is

a

> > major difference.If we consider this from a navamsha arrangement -

> > Rashi dristies taken are violating rule as mentioned above.Thus

they

> > have to be the Graha PLACEMENTS in rashi chakra w.r to Karakamsha

> > lagna ,which is able to cast aspects.

> >

> > I would also like to point out that i feel,it is Shri Sanjay Rath

who

> > has proposed this theory and such a kind of drishti pattern

(isolated

> > amsha diagrams). But i can say that one will be reluctant to

accept

> > it as from parampara,as there were numerous cases where shri Rath

> > considered garaha drishti in varga arrangements in the past,before

> > resorting to rashi drishti,which again is used inappropriately as

per

> > my personal view.

> >

> > Kindly pardon if have committed any errors here.As you are

aware,the

> > intention is only to gain true knowledge.No matter whetehr i am

wrong

> > or other learned souls.

> >

> > Respect

> > Pradeep

> >

> > <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > >

> > > Dear Pradeep,

> > >

> > > I have sent the diagram to your personal address, as desired.

> > > Chandrashekhar.

> > >

> > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > >

> > > > Thanks for mail.Kindly send the diagram to vijayadas_pradeep@

> > > > <vijayadas_pradeep%40>

> > > > as i have opted for reading from the group site.

> > > >

> > > > Respect

> > > > Pradeep

> > <%40>

> > > > <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > > The reference to south indian chart is actually to just

point

> > out

> > > > that

> > > > > there are more than one style of charts that have to be

> > considered

> > > > when

> > > > > we consider interpretation of abhipashyanti rikshaani. All

other

> > > > rasis

> > > > > aspecting each other the cardinal signs also aspect each

others

> > > > from

> > > > > their position of being in a corner. So the side wise view

is on

> > > > the

> > > > > Rasis not aspected by other group of rasis, which lead to

their

> > > > > aspecting only other cardinal rasis.

> > > > >

> > > > > There is a circular diagram that explains this concept of

> > aspect to

> > > > > rasis in front and sides, barring the adjacent rasis,

> > beautifully

> > > > and I

> > > > > have tried to draw it for you and it is attached for your

> > > > information in

> > > > > .doc format. Only you will have to pardon my limited skills

with

> > > > drawing

> > > > > tools. The concept is actually elaborated at length by both

> > > > Parashara

> > > > > and also in Vriddha karikas. So there is no ambiguity in the

> > matter.

> > > > >

> > > > > Take care,

> > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > >

> > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Thanks for the explanation.Even if we take South Indian

> > > > chart,there

> > > > > > is a problem.

> > > > > > If we say front,then why is Sag not aspecting

Aquarius,which

> > is on

> > > > > > front,but aspects Meena which comes after Aqua.Similarly

> > Kanya and

> > > > > > Karka.similarly there are other concerns.

> > > > > > As you have mentioned,commentators might have been

influenced

> > by

> > > > > > south indian style.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Respect

> > > > > > Pradeep

> > > > > >

> > <%40>

> > > > <%40>

> > > > > > <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> > > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > If you draw a south indian style chart you will find

that

> > the

> > > > signs

> > > > > > do

> > > > > > > aspect the ones in front of them. Parshva means side of

the

> > body

> > > > > > and the

> > > > > > > second sutra tells that they also aspect the signs to

their

> > > > side.

> > > > > > The

> > > > > > > interpretation of sutras is always difficult. However

there

> > are

> > > > > > Vriddha

> > > > > > > Karikas that make the situation quite crystal clear.

> > Parashara

> > > > also

> > > > > > uses

> > > > > > > the same terminology but goes on th explain that the

> > adjacent

> > > > rasis

> > > > > > are

> > > > > > > not aspected upon and the explanation of the rasi

aspect is

> > > > > > clarified

> > > > > > > beyond doubt by him. Krishnanand Saraswati, in his

> > commentary on

> > > > > > Jaimini

> > > > > > > sutras also express the same opinion. The grahas

occupying

> > the

> > > > > > rasis

> > > > > > > also have identical aspects as those of the rasis.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Take care,

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Dear shri Sreenadh & Respected members

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > It is really informative to read your recent

historical

> > write

> > > > up's

> > > > > > > > regarding Astrology(Arsha paramparya and

> > > > Parashara/Jaimini).Thank

> > > > > > > > you very much.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > In similar lines to Argala,i have a fundamental doubt

> > > > regarding

> > > > > > > > Rashi drishtis.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Let me quote from the translation done by Shri Surya

> > Narain

> > > > Rao.

> > > > > > > > SU.2.-Abhipasyanti rikshani. The zodiacal signs aspect

> > each

> > > > other

> > > > > > > > (in their front). SU. 3.-Parswabhe cha. Excepting.the

> > > > > > > > signs to them. SU. 4.- ?ihann ishthascha tadvat. Those

> > planets

> > > > > > which

> > > > > > > > occupy such signs will also aspect the planets found

in

> > such

> > > > > > houses.

> > > > > > > > Respected translator makes the following HONEST

> > statement -

> > > > ''The

> > > > > > > > zodiacal signs aspect each other which are in their

> > FRONT. I

> > > > DO

> > > > > > NOT

> > > > > > > > exactly understand what is meant by the word

FRONT''.Then

> > he

> > > > says

> > > > > > > > commentators observe - Mesha has Vrishchika,Mithuna

has

> > > > > > > > Thula .....Meena has Mithuna as their front signs.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Pls see my next mail for personal views.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Regds

> > > > > > > > Pradeep

> > > > > > > >

> > <%40>

> > > > <%40>

> > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > <%40>, " Sreenadh "

> > <sreesog@>

> > > > > > wrote:

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Dear All,

> > > > > > > > > What is Argala? What is the popular opinion about

the

> > same?

> > > > In

> > > > > > > > what

> > > > > > > > > situations it is applicable? Are there any

> > contradictions

> > > > > > between

> > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > definition of Argala by Parasara and Jaimini? What

is

> > your

> > > > > > > > opinion?

> > > > > > > > > Please clarify.

> > > > > > > > > Regards,

> > > > > > > > > Sreenadh

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > ---------------------

----

> > > > > > ------

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.8.9/832 -

Release

> > Date:

> > > > > > 6/4/2007 6:43 PM

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

June 10, 2007

Dear Pradeep,

I think we are talking at cross purposes. Dashaadhyaayi may not be the

right text to understand rasi drishti as that concept does not appear in

Brihat jataka.

having said that if Dashaadhyaayi is to be used to understand aspects in

Navamsha then that is the right approach. Now the statement that grahas

have navamshaka in 12 rasis is not something that is unique to

Dashaadhyaayi. That is said in all texts. It means that as grahas own

rasis so do they own navamshas within certain rasis. But when you say

that these can only be seen in reference to rasis, then you are saying

something that is different from what Satyacharya says. He as well as

the author of Dashaadhyaayi is talking about Chandra navamsha being

considered in the same manner as Chandra rasi for Sunapha/

anapha/Durudhara yoga (or rather cancellation of Kemadruma) as indicated

by you. This means that the graha does not have to be in the next

navamsha but in Mithuna or Simha or both navamsha in any of the rasis

that those navamsha fall in. here then is a clear break between

infallible rasi amsha relation that is generally considered and this

only proves that not every time rasi navamsha are to be read only with

respect to the rasi holding the graha.

I think you have, also, not read the interpretation given by Bhattotpala

the learned commentator on Brihat jataka. He clearly tells that the

drishtis are to be taken in Dwadashamsha and navamsha as in the rasi

chart in case of results told when Chandra is aspected by Surya and

other grahas also are obtained in navamsha and DwaadashaMsha.

Dashaadhyaayi is supposed to be commentary on the first 10 adhyaayas of

Brihatjataka and the shloka I quoted is appearing in the 19th adhyaaya.

So are you certain that Dashaadhyaayi interprets the same shloka?

As to looking at Karakamsha lagna as the navamsha rasi holding Chara

Atmakaraka in rasi chart is concerned, would the sages not have called

it as Karaka lagna instead of Karakamsha lagna? One must remember that

when we are talking of Karakamsha we are talking about an arc of 3

degrees 20 minutes and not 30 degrees, which is what the rasi chakra

rasi would be. Other Chara Karakas will also occupy such arcs of 3

degrees 20 minutes and they could be within the same rasi also or in the

rasi next to it. How are we now going to read them in the Rasi chart is

something that must be thought over. Merely saying that Karakamsha Lagna

should be read in rasi chakra may take us away from this basic truth of

these sensitive points. Again why should one then look at 7th from lagna

navamsha for spouse, as agreed by you, if everything is to be mapped

back to rasi chart needs to be thought over. The 7th from lagna navamsha

could lie within the lagna rasi itself and mapping it back to the

benefic lagna rasi would mean it being a benefic even if it falls in

malefic navamsha. Kshetra being rasi, the moment you map it back to Rasi

chart, it will not be in malefic kshetra. Now this means that the

principles given in Brihat jataka or Dashaadhyaayi do not hold good. I

am sure you do not mean that.

By the way, I have already said that the drishti in navamsha or for that

matter dwadashaamsha is to be viewed as multiples of the arc of zodiac

represented by each of such division. That is the Amsha sambandha that

the sages refer to.

Take care,

Chandrashekhar.

vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

>

> Dear Chandrashekhar ji

>

> Thanks for the explanations on Rashi drishti.But some how i feel,i

> have not been clear enough.I have understood the fact that ,it is the

> rashis that decide the drishti and grahas placed can aspect because

> of the said rashi drishti.No dispute here.Kindly see the examples i

> have provided.

>

> Aries aspect Leo.Jupiter and Saturn are not placed there.As per

> definition of Rashi drishti,only the grahas placed there can aspect

> because of aspects between dispositing rashis.Hope you understand.In

> the shlokas from dashadhyayi it has been explained that grahas have

> amshaka in meshadi dwadasha ksehthras.Rashi drishti talks about

> planets placed in the Rashi and not those having amshaka sambandha

> there.

>

> Also it is mentioned in dashadhyayi,that some acharyas like jeeva

> sharma says kemadruma,does not happen if there is a graha in chandra

> kendra or in chandra NAVAMSHAKA rashi.Also for Sunabha etc if a

> planet is placed in 2/12 etc from Chandra NAVAMSHAKA Rashi -

> explaining how navamsha/rashi are related and how they are to be

> interpreted.

>

> Regarding your shloka - It is mentioned that,check the hora in which

> chandra is placed(it can be of surya or chandra ).Drishti from

> planets in that Hora is good for Chandra.Similarly drishti from

> drekkanadhipathi of Chandra is good.Similarly from planets placed in

> the friendly kshethras of chandra is good.

> Also it says,the results for aspects to chandra having dwadashamshaka

> in meshadi dwadasha rashis are the same as when placed in those

> rashis.In all these places and from numerous shlokas it has been made

> clear that amshaka is happening within the same rashi chakra and

> therefore one will have no confusion in attributing drishties,as they

> are seen in rashi chakra.

>

> Karakamsha

> There is no place where it is mentioned that results are to be read

> from navamsha arrangement.When we read the texts in full we see how

> the amsha of a graha and aspect on them are studied.Karakamsha is

> again the amsha of a planet.A Bhava can only be studied with

> reference to a Rashi.This Rashi can be Karakamsha lagna,navamsha

> lagna etc.This is explained better in the following shloka.As you

> know one learned Guru had tried to get away with the KA usage amshaka

> and amsha.They are purely pointing to frame of reference -

> Bhaumarkshe ,Bhaumashe and LagnamshaKA rashi explains this.

>

> Sthree jatakadhyaya - 10th Shloka.

>

> As i have said before,numbers 1/4/7 etc are representing the order of

> tattwas in which vargas of a Rashi are constituted.This is another

> reason why Bhavat Bhavam is possible.Every nth rashi from a reference

> (chandra lagna,karakamsha lagna etc )have a particular significance

> and i have no dispute here.So is the case with Navamsha Lagna.That is

> why i have said one can see 1,7,10 etc in rashi chakra from Lagna

> navamsha.

>

> In the 10th shloka in Stree jatakadhyaya too the case is no

> different.One has to find if the amshaka of the 7th from lagnamsha is

> falling in Kuja kshethra.Check if Shanis is aspecting this

> Kujakshethra - Yoni Roga results.Whether you count from Rashi or

> navamsha it gives the same result - but the important point to note

> is 7th from lagna navamsha reference points to wife.It falls in a

> malefic kshethra and has malefic drishti.Acharya also asked us to

> compare the strengths of 7th bhava as well as the above said

> kshethra.Stronger one prevails.This similar to lagna rashi having

> strength or lagnamshaka rashi having strength.Only difference is

> strength of 7th from lagnamshaka rashi is considered as 7th refers

> to wife.Bhavat Bhavam from lagna navamsha.Aspect is seen from shani

> to the said Kuja kshethra.

>

> I feel the main confusion that we are having is because of not

> treating amshas as amshaka sambandhas within the same 12 Rashis.This

> has been clearly explained by the texts that i read.

>

> Thanks for the trust that you have placed in me

>

> Respect

> Pradeep

>

> <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> <chandrashekhar46 wrote:

> >

> > Dear Pradeep,

> >

> > I am glad you got the diagram and could decipher it well.

> >

> > I think there is some confusion about rasi drishti in your mind. I

> think

> > I have also said that the rasi drishti is a mutual static relation

> > between rasis due to their nature, unaffected by the graha's

> placement.

> > If grahas also happen to be in an aspecting rasi then that graha

> also

> > aspects, is the dictum. If you look at aspects as influences, that

> may

> > be easier to understand. The difference between the graha and rasi

> > drishti may be looked at this way. If one is standing on the roof

> of a

> > building, one can look at the direction one wants to look at and

> this is

> > like graha drishti where the aspects are per the nature of the

> > individual graha irrespective of the rasi occupied. If how ever one

> is

> > in a room with only three windows, no matter who you are you can

> only

> > look out through those windows only and can see, or in other words

> > influence, only the area allowed by that room with its own specific

> > window placement.

> >

> > So rasi drishti talks about the ability of a rasi to influence

> some

> > other rasis and also making the grahas occupying them also to

> influence

> > those rasis.

> >

> > I have already sent you some shlokas that indicate the yogas

> occurring

> > without reference to rasis occupied by grahas and only based on the

> > navamshas occupied by them. If you look at the shloka 10 of

> > streejatakaadhyaaya you will also see that the results for rasi or

> > navamsha in the 7th of rasi of various grahas are identical. So the

> > bhavas on navamshas are obviously seen as identical to that of rasi

> > chakra and this is chart that I said one can look at on a different

> > basis than other D-charts. There is also a shloka in Brihatjataka

> that

> > indicates that the results told when Chandra is aspected by Surya

> and

> > other grahas also are obtained in navamsha and DvaadashaMsha

> indicating

> > drishtis in those D-Charts. I am giving the shloka below, for ready

> > reference. As usual the first and alternate line after that is in

> > Sanskrit 99 fonts and second line and alternate from it are in URW

> > Palladio IT fonts. The shloka is from drishti adhayaaya. I would

> like to

> > know how Dashaadhyaayi has translated this, as I do not have that

> text

> > with me.

> >

> > haerez]RdlaiïtE> zuÉkrae +ò> zzI tÌt-

> > horeçarkñadaläçritaiù çubhakaro dåñöaù çaçé tadgata-

> > ô(<ze tTpitiÉ> suùÑvngEvaR vIi]t> zSyte,

> > stryaàçe tatpatibhiù suhådbhavanagairvä vékñitaù çasyate|

> > yTàae´< àitraizvI][)l< tdoeÖadza<ze Sm & t<

> > yatproktaà pratiräçivékñaëaphalaà taddvädaçäàçe småtaà

> > suyaR*Ervlaeikte=ip zizin }ey< nva<ze:vt>.19,4.

> > suryädyairavalokite'pi çaçini jïeyaà naväàçeñvataù||19|4||

> >

> > You can also find yogas described by Varahamihira about Moon from

> sama

> > rasi in mutual aspect to Sun in Vishama rasi leading to some

> results and

> > so on. If you think about the fact that both Moon and Sun have only

> 7th

> > house aspect as graha drishti, how are those yogas possible, if not

> for

> > rasi drishti. Think about this.

> >

> > I can not comment on views of KNR or Sanjay Rath as everybody has a

> > right to his own views. I have never held any brief for secret

> Parampara

> > as I have never believed that the divine knowledge was meant to be

> > secret, it being taught to all students in days long gone by.

> >

> > There is no clear cut reference for the need to read Karakamsha in

> rasi

> > chart that I have seen so far. To me the very work Karakamsha means

> the

> > amsha occupied by the karaka and amsha is seen in navamsha

> generally. If

> > someone points a reference in an astro text making it necessary to

> see

> > Karakamsha in rasi chakra only, I could always correct my views,

> the

> > weight of authority so quoted, so warranting it.

> >

> > I have never misunderstood you as I know you for a true seeker of

> knowledge.

> >

> > Take care,

> > Chandrashekhar

> >

> > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > >

> > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > >

> > > Thanks a lot for the diagram.Being a Mechanical engineer i feel

> you

> > > would had done lots of machine drawing!!.

> > > As i am having only a malayalam translation of BPHS,written by

> late

> > > Professor Muthuswamy,written in many parts,and as i am not having

> all

> > > those parts with me here,diagram was new to me.It wasreally

> > > helpful.Infact i had tried to draw a diagram based on directions

> and

> > > did find a linear link,as i had mentioned in my first mail

> relating

> > > to this thread.This diagram thus clear my doubts.Interstingly as

> we

> > > have understood,drishties are based on spatial/physical

> > > disposition.This also confirms why Graha drishti is impossible,in

> a

> > > diagram holding amsha rashi relations of our Lagna and planets.

> > >

> > > Now the next point is Rashi drishti.Suppose Mars is placed in

> Aries

> > > and Sun is in Leo,then as per definition from sage Mars aspects

> > > Sun.Now let us assume Jupiter is having navamsha in Aries and

> Saturn

> > > in Leo.As per the explanation given by you,Jupiter should aspect

> > > Saturn.I personally with all due respect have doubts and tends and

> > > prefer a disagreement.Going by the same rules of spatial

> > > arrangement - as Jupiter and Saturn are placed somewhere else they

> > > cannot effect an aspect by virtue of aspects between Aries and

> > > Leo.The placement in those Rashis gives such a capacity.Hope i am

> > > clear.

> > >

> > > For the same reason,i have always been supporting K.N.Raojis views

> > > about Karakamsha to be read in Rashi chakra.There are numerous

> > > shlokas relating to Karakamsha,involving aspects of planets.My

> > > personal view is one has to first reach an agreement on whether

> rashi

> > > drishti or graha drishti is the apt one.I can agree if you say

> Rashi

> > > drishti is possible as both the drishties are valid.Then there is

> a

> > > major difference.If we consider this from a navamsha arrangement -

> > > Rashi dristies taken are violating rule as mentioned above.Thus

> they

> > > have to be the Graha PLACEMENTS in rashi chakra w.r to Karakamsha

> > > lagna ,which is able to cast aspects.

> > >

> > > I would also like to point out that i feel,it is Shri Sanjay Rath

> who

> > > has proposed this theory and such a kind of drishti pattern

> (isolated

> > > amsha diagrams). But i can say that one will be reluctant to

> accept

> > > it as from parampara,as there were numerous cases where shri Rath

> > > considered garaha drishti in varga arrangements in the past,before

> > > resorting to rashi drishti,which again is used inappropriately as

> per

> > > my personal view.

> > >

> > > Kindly pardon if have committed any errors here.As you are

> aware,the

> > > intention is only to gain true knowledge.No matter whetehr i am

> wrong

> > > or other learned souls.

> > >

> > > Respect

> > > Pradeep

> > >

> <%40>

> > > <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > >

> > > > I have sent the diagram to your personal address, as desired.

> > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > >

> > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > >

> > > > > Thanks for mail.Kindly send the diagram to vijayadas_pradeep@

> > > > > <vijayadas_pradeep%40>

> > > > > as i have opted for reading from the group site.

> > > > >

> > > > > Respect

> > > > > Pradeep

> <%40>

> > > <%40>

> > > > > <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > > > The reference to south indian chart is actually to just

> point

> > > out

> > > > > that

> > > > > > there are more than one style of charts that have to be

> > > considered

> > > > > when

> > > > > > we consider interpretation of abhipashyanti rikshaani. All

> other

> > > > > rasis

> > > > > > aspecting each other the cardinal signs also aspect each

> others

> > > > > from

> > > > > > their position of being in a corner. So the side wise view

> is on

> > > > > the

> > > > > > Rasis not aspected by other group of rasis, which lead to

> their

> > > > > > aspecting only other cardinal rasis.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > There is a circular diagram that explains this concept of

> > > aspect to

> > > > > > rasis in front and sides, barring the adjacent rasis,

> > > beautifully

> > > > > and I

> > > > > > have tried to draw it for you and it is attached for your

> > > > > information in

> > > > > > .doc format. Only you will have to pardon my limited skills

> with

> > > > > drawing

> > > > > > tools. The concept is actually elaborated at length by both

> > > > > Parashara

> > > > > > and also in Vriddha karikas. So there is no ambiguity in the

> > > matter.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Take care,

> > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Thanks for the explanation.Even if we take South Indian

> > > > > chart,there

> > > > > > > is a problem.

> > > > > > > If we say front,then why is Sag not aspecting

> Aquarius,which

> > > is on

> > > > > > > front,but aspects Meena which comes after Aqua.Similarly

> > > Kanya and

> > > > > > > Karka.similarly there are other concerns.

> > > > > > > As you have mentioned,commentators might have been

> influenced

> > > by

> > > > > > > south indian style.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Respect

> > > > > > > Pradeep

> > > > > > >

> <%40>

> > > <%40>

> > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> > > > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > If you draw a south indian style chart you will find

> that

> > > the

> > > > > signs

> > > > > > > do

> > > > > > > > aspect the ones in front of them. Parshva means side of

> the

> > > body

> > > > > > > and the

> > > > > > > > second sutra tells that they also aspect the signs to

> their

> > > > > side.

> > > > > > > The

> > > > > > > > interpretation of sutras is always difficult. However

> there

> > > are

> > > > > > > Vriddha

> > > > > > > > Karikas that make the situation quite crystal clear.

> > > Parashara

> > > > > also

> > > > > > > uses

> > > > > > > > the same terminology but goes on th explain that the

> > > adjacent

> > > > > rasis

> > > > > > > are

> > > > > > > > not aspected upon and the explanation of the rasi

> aspect is

> > > > > > > clarified

> > > > > > > > beyond doubt by him. Krishnanand Saraswati, in his

> > > commentary on

> > > > > > > Jaimini

> > > > > > > > sutras also express the same opinion. The grahas

> occupying

> > > the

> > > > > > > rasis

> > > > > > > > also have identical aspects as those of the rasis.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Take care,

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Dear shri Sreenadh & Respected members

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > It is really informative to read your recent

> historical

> > > write

> > > > > up's

> > > > > > > > > regarding Astrology(Arsha paramparya and

> > > > > Parashara/Jaimini).Thank

> > > > > > > > > you very much.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > In similar lines to Argala,i have a fundamental doubt

> > > > > regarding

> > > > > > > > > Rashi drishtis.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Let me quote from the translation done by Shri Surya

> > > Narain

> > > > > Rao.

> > > > > > > > > SU.2.-Abhipasyanti rikshani. The zodiacal signs aspect

> > > each

> > > > > other

> > > > > > > > > (in their front). SU. 3.-Parswabhe cha. Excepting.the

> next

> > > > > > > zodiacal

> > > > > > > > > signs to them. SU. 4.- ?ihann ishthascha tadvat. Those

> > > planets

> > > > > > > which

> > > > > > > > > occupy such signs will also aspect the planets found

> in

> > > such

> > > > > > > houses.

> > > > > > > > > Respected translator makes the following HONEST

> > > statement -

> > > > > ''The

> > > > > > > > > zodiacal signs aspect each other which are in their

> > > FRONT. I

> > > > > DO

> > > > > > > NOT

> > > > > > > > > exactly understand what is meant by the word

> FRONT''.Then

> > > he

> > > > > says

> > > > > > > > > commentators observe - Mesha has Vrishchika,Mithuna

> has

> > > > > > > > > Thula .....Meena has Mithuna as their front signs.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Pls see my next mail for personal views.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Regds

> > > > > > > > > Pradeep

> > > > > > > > >

> <%40>

> > > <%40>

> > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > <%40>, " Sreenadh "

> > > <sreesog@>

> > > > > > > wrote:

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Dear All,

> > > > > > > > > > What is Argala? What is the popular opinion about

> the

> > > same?

> > > > > In

> > > > > > > > > what

> > > > > > > > > > situations it is applicable? Are there any

> > > contradictions

> > > > > > > between

> > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > definition of Argala by Parasara and Jaimini? What

> is

> > > your

> > > > > > > > > opinion?

> > > > > > > > > > Please clarify.

> > > > > > > > > > Regards,

> > > > > > > > > > Sreenadh

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > ---------------------

> ----

> > > > > > > ------

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.8.9/832 -

> Release

> > > Date:

> > > > > > > 6/4/2007 6:43 PM

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

June 11, 2007

Dear Chandrashekhar ji,

==>

> I think it has been mentioned by the early acharyas of Kashi

> Vishwavidyalaya, who compiled the original shlokas of the BPHS,

> that the manuscripts that they based BPHS on were not

> titled " Brihad Paraashara Hora Shastra " .

<==

Ok. With enough supporting evidence it could, also extend the info

that BPHS could be neither original nor complete. But for sure it a

very useful, authentic, valuable, resource, that depict the system

followed by Parasara school.

==>

> The conjecture of Parashara who gave the current text

> being of 1400 b.c. must remain a conjecture as the text mentions

> that Yudhishthira is having a certain yoga and enumerates others

> who had similar yogas in the text indicating him being alive at the

> time of Mahabharata. Mahabharata ends with death of Lord Krishna or

> soon after that which is around 3102 B. C. If this is not

> acceptable then the contents of the texts must have been collection

> of myriad granthas and nothing more.

<==

* Presents of a certain yoga in Yudhishtira's horasope in BPHS.

* indicating him being alive at the time of Mahabharata.

That is new knowledge to me - please provide the chapter number and

sloka number; I will refer to BPHS to have a better idea about the

same.

==>

> If this is not

> acceptable then the contents of the texts must have been collection

> of myriad granthas and nothing more.

<==

There is a better chance for the same; but even when fragmented the

bits and pieces of the ancient knowledge available through such texts

should be valued very much. Remember that the ancient epics speaks

and quotes slokas from " Agneya Purana " and what we have today

is " Agni Purana " and " Vahni Purana " and many slokas of " Agneya

Purana " quoted by other Puranas are missing in both of them. It could

be the case with many other texts - even astrological classics like

BPHS.

==>

> If you could quote the shloka in Paraashari that gives the

> date of the text and it having been written by Parashara I would be

> obliged much. The edition which gives those shlokas may also be

> quoted, so that checking them will be easy.

<==

Please refer to the previous mail - I said that " Parasara Samhita "

(not BPHS) provides us with a sloka that helps us in determining the

date of Parasara. The sloka is quoted by Bhattolpala in the

commentary of Brihat Samhita. I have written a detailed write up on

the same in vedic astrology group long time back, If you do a search

there you will get it for sure. (As time permits I too will try to

locate it, to save my self from re-writing it again)

Of course Jaimini Sutras are in Sutra form - but not sutras that

completely satisfies the definition of Sutras. My argument was that

it is because, Jaimini sutra was not an original work but rather an

teaching/abbreviation effort of unique concepts discussed by Parasara.

==>

> That is why I said let us agree to disagree.

<==

Dear Chandrashekhar ji, agreement or disagreement shouldn't be a pre-

condition; but a natural result. And we are always free to agree,

disagree, or agree to diagree - if not friendship what can give us

that freedom.

Love,

Sreenadh

, Chandrashekhar

<chandrashekhar46 wrote:

>

> Dear Sreenadh,

>

> I think it has been mentioned by the early acharyas of Kashi

> Vishwavidyalaya, who compiled the original shlokas of the BPHS,

that the

> manuscripts that they based BPHS on were not titled " Brihad

Paraashara

> Hora Shastra " . The conjecture of Parashara who gave the current

text

> being of 1400 b.c. must remain a conjecture as the text mentions

that

> Yudhishthira is having a certain yoga and enumerates others who had

> similar yogas in the text indicating him being alive at the time of

> Mahabharata. Mahabharata ends with death of Lord Krishna or soon

after

> that which is around 3102 B. C. If this is not acceptable then the

> contents of the texts must have been collection of myriad granthas

and

> nothing more. If you could quote the shloka in Paraashari that

gives the

> date of the text and it having been written by Parashara I would be

> obliged much. The edition which gives those shlokas may also be

quoted,

> so that checking them will be easy.

>

> The definition of sutras given by you is right. But the clarity is

for

> ones who are well versed in that science and not for everyone, as

> guarding the divine knowledge was the reason sutras have brevity.

So I

> do not think any Sanskrit scholar ( I am not one) would declare

them

> anything but sutras. I have sought opinion of the learned in that

> language and their uniform opinion is that they are sutras.

>

> That is why I said let us agree to disagree.

>

> Chandrashekhar.

>

> Sreenadh wrote:

> >

> > Dear Chandrashekhar ji,

> > It is not Parashara of Mahabharata (the father of Vyasa) who wrote

> > Parasara Hora. But a Parasara who lived around BC 1400 wrote

Parasara

> > Sidhanta, Parasara Hora and Parasara Samhita, as the proof for the

> > same is provided by an availabe sloka of Parasara Samhita.

> > BPHS definitely mentions the names of Parasara and Mitreya, and

> > since the book is as told by Parasara and that is why the name

Brihat

> > Parasara Hora Sastra is attributed to it.

> > Coming to Jaimini sutra, the text does not even fulfill the prime

> > condition for a Sutra text. As per the definition-

> > " Alpaksharam Aasannigdtham Sutram Sutravido vidu "

> > [A sutra should contain less number of characters and the meaning

of

> > the sutra should be crystal clear]

> > Even though the sutras in Jaimini sutra contains less number of

> > characters, they does not satisfy the second condition the meaning

> > should be unambiguous and crystal clear.

> > Look at any other sutra text - such as Brigu Sutra in Astrology,

> > Sutras of Patanjali in grammar, Yoga Sutras of Patanjali, Chanakya

> > Sutra etc - you will see the great difference between their

approach

> > and presentation and the mere 'Abbreviation effort' of Jaimini.

> >

> > Love,

> > Sreenadh

> >

> > <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > >

> > > Dear Sreenadh,

> > >

> > > Carrying the logic further what proof is there that the

Parashara who

> > > was father of Vyasa wrote the BPHS? Nobody wrote books in those

days

> > > they were memorized and carried by word of mouth. Even BPHS

does not

> > > mention that being its name.

> > >

> > > I think there is a bit of difference between sutras and

shlokas. I do

> > > not think there is any evidence that suggests that it is

> > presentation of

> > > concepts of Parashara in abbreviated manner. Could you point to

those

> > > sutras that do this?

> > >

> > > Chandrashekhar.

> > >

> > > Sreenadh wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji,

> > > > I have another question - what proof is there to say that the

book

> > > > is written by sage Jaimini? The book does not even mention

the auther,

> > > > then what to say about his guru?

> > > > The book 'Jaimini Sutra' is written by a student of some

teacher

> > > > (let us positively hope that it is Jaimini), and collects and

presents

> > > > the advice given by the teacher, as indicated by the first

sutra of

> > > > the text itself. One more thing - where in the book it is

mentioned

> > > > that the name of the book is 'Jaimini Sutra'?

> > > > But the internal proof - the slokas, the terminology, concepts

> > > > described etc - clearly tells us that it an effort to present

the

> > > > concepts presented by Parasara in an abriviated manner. This

being the

> > > > situation, I too would agree to disagree...

> > > > P.S: I am uploading my thoughts on some of the intial slokas

of

> > > > Jaimini sutra, and the link is provided in the next post.

> > > > Love,

> > > > Sreenadh

> > > >

> > <%40>

> > > > <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > > Dear Sreenadh,

> > > > >

> > > > > I could have agreed to the contention had Jaimini mentioned

> > somewhere

> > > > > about Parashara having been his Guru, as was the practice

in ancient

> > > > > sages. Even Parashara tells his having given the knowledge

> > received by

> > > > > Shaunaka who got it through Garga who in turn received it

through

> > > > > Narada. But then I am an obstinate old person who was

taught to base

> > > > his

> > > > > judgement of the ancient astrological texts, on both

Pramana and

> > tarka.

> > > > >

> > > > > So let us agree to disagree on this.

> > > > >

> > > > > Regards,

> > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > >

> > > > > Sreenadh wrote:

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Dear Chandrasekhar ji,

> > > > > > 1)Even though Jaimini sutra provides a special set of

> > principles as

> > > > > > compared to the available (printed) BPHS, there are many

> > slokas that

> > > > > > supports the same, as available from commentaries of

Jaimini sutra

> > > > > > and virdha karikas.

> > > > > > There are many slokas of Parasara available, about many

such

> > > > > > concepts that are not present in the printed BPHS, but

present in

> > > > > > various commentaries of Jaimini sutra.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > 2) It is not the simple study of Argala concept alone that

> > helps us

> > > > > > in reaching the conclusion that " Jaimini sutra is a guide

and

> > > > > > extension of BPHS, that tries to teach Parasara's

concepts " , but

> > > > > > rather-

> > > > > > * the study of the whole book and its approach

> > > > > > * comparison of concepts and words used within it

> > > > > > * the methodology of presentation followed in the book

> > > > > > and many more.

> > > > > > Love,

> > > > > > Sreenadh

> > > > > >

> > <%40>

> > > > <%40>

> > > > > > <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> > > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Dear Sreenadh,

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > But if the two are giving different sets of principles,

as

> > > > > > indicated by

> > > > > > > you in another mail, then how do you verify the

veracity of the

> > > > > > sutras.

> > > > > > > Anyway, I still do not find enough evidence to think

that

> > Parashara

> > > > > > is

> > > > > > > Anargala and Jaimini is Argala. Only Lord Shiva is

Anargala

> > and we

> > > > > > do

> > > > > > > not have access to him.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Sreenadh wrote:

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji,

> > > > > > > > I think the interpretation of Jaimini sutras become

far more

> > > > > > easier

> > > > > > > > if we find the bolt and the key.

> > > > > > > > * The Bolt is: Jaimini sutra is not an independent

text,

> > it is a

> > > > > > > > guide to BPHS concepts, extending them a bit.

> > > > > > > > * The Key is: Refer to BPHS first always for clarity,

and

> > then try

> > > > > > > > unlocking Jaimini sutra with the same.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > P.S: May be BPHS is Anargala and Jaimini sutra is the

> > Argala. )

> > > > > > > > Love,

> > > > > > > > Sreenadh

> > > > > > > >

> > <%40>

> > > > <%40>

> > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > <%40>,

Chandrashekhar

> > > > > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > If you draw a south indian style chart you will find

> > that the

> > > > > > signs

> > > > > > > > do

> > > > > > > > > aspect the ones in front of them. Parshva means

side of

> > the body

> > > > > > > > and the

> > > > > > > > > second sutra tells that they also aspect the signs

to their

> > > > > > side.

> > > > > > > > The

> > > > > > > > > interpretation of sutras is always difficult.

However

> > there are

> > > > > > > > Vriddha

> > > > > > > > > Karikas that make the situation quite crystal clear.

> > Parashara

> > > > > > also

> > > > > > > > uses

> > > > > > > > > the same terminology but goes on th explain that the

> > adjacent

> > > > > > rasis

> > > > > > > > are

> > > > > > > > > not aspected upon and the explanation of the rasi

aspect is

> > > > > > > > clarified

> > > > > > > > > beyond doubt by him. Krishnanand Saraswati, in his

> > commentary on

> > > > > > > > Jaimini

> > > > > > > > > sutras also express the same opinion. The grahas

> > occupying the

> > > > > > > > rasis

> > > > > > > > > also have identical aspects as those of the rasis.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Take care,

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Dear shri Sreenadh & Respected members

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > It is really informative to read your recent

> > historical write

> > > > > > up's

> > > > > > > > > > regarding Astrology(Arsha paramparya and

> > > > > > Parashara/Jaimini).Thank

> > > > > > > > > > you very much.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > In similar lines to Argala,i have a fundamental

doubt

> > > > > > regarding

> > > > > > > > > > Rashi drishtis.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Let me quote from the translation done by Shri

Surya

> > Narain

> > > > > > Rao.

> > > > > > > > > > SU.2.-Abhipasyanti rikshani. The zodiacal signs

aspect

> > each

> > > > > > other

> > > > > > > > > > (in their front). SU. 3.-Parswabhe cha.

Excepting.the next

> > > > > > > > zodiacal

> > > > > > > > > > signs to them. SU. 4.- ?ihann ishthascha tadvat.

Those

> > planets

> > > > > > > > which

> > > > > > > > > > occupy such signs will also aspect the planets

found

> > in such

> > > > > > > > houses.

> > > > > > > > > > Respected translator makes the following HONEST

> > statement -

> > > > > > ''The

> > > > > > > > > > zodiacal signs aspect each other which are in

their

> > FRONT. I

> > > > > > DO

> > > > > > > > NOT

> > > > > > > > > > exactly understand what is meant by the word

> > FRONT''.Then he

> > > > > > says

> > > > > > > > > > commentators observe - Mesha has

Vrishchika,Mithuna has

> > > > > > > > > > Thula .....Meena has Mithuna as their front signs.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Pls see my next mail for personal views.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Regds

> > > > > > > > > > Pradeep

> > > > > > > > > >

> > <%40>

> > > > <%40>

> > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > <%

40>, " Sreenadh "

> > <sreesog@>

> > > > > > > > wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Dear All,

> > > > > > > > > > > What is Argala? What is the popular opinion

about

> > the same?

> > > > > > In

> > > > > > > > > > what

> > > > > > > > > > > situations it is applicable? Are there any

> > contradictions

> > > > > > > > between

> > > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > definition of Argala by Parasara and Jaimini?

What

> > is your

> > > > > > > > > > opinion?

> > > > > > > > > > > Please clarify.

> > > > > > > > > > > Regards,

> > > > > > > > > > > Sreenadh

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > -----------------

--------

> > > > > > > > ------

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.8.9/832 -

> > Release Date:

> > > > > > > > 6/4/2007 6:43 PM

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been

removed]

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > ---------------------

----

> > > > > > ------

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.8.9/832 -

Release Date:

> > > > > > 6/4/2007 6:43 PM

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

June 11, 2007

Dear Chandrashekhar ji,

==>

> I do not find the Jaimini sutra telling about argala of 4th house

> being blocked by 11th house virodh agrala therein. Can you send

> those sutras with your interpretation?

<==

Please read the commentary on the sloka " Dara Bhagya Soolastha

Argala Nidhyatu " in the above pdf file. (This is the first sloka in

the Argala discussion section) It is discussed there in detail.

The above sloka speaks about Argala caused by 4-2-11 houses, getting

obstructed Virodhargala formed in 11-9-6 houses respectively. Read

that write up for details.

Copy pasting it here again would be mere repetition.

Love,

Sreenadh

, Chandrashekhar

<chandrashekhar46 wrote:

>

> Dear Sreenadh,

>

> I have read the file and have sent you an answer. I do not find any

> reason to change my opinion after reading the file as what is

stated is

> more of a conjecture than logical deduction.

>

> I do not find the Jaimini sutra telling about argala of 4th house

being

> blocked by 11th house virodh agrala therein. Can you send those

sutras

> with your interpretation?

>

> So let us agree to disagree.

>

> regards,

> Chandrashekhar.

>

> Sreenadh wrote:

> >

> > Dea Chandrashekhar ji,

> > I forgot to answer one of your questions-

> > ==>

> > > I do not think there is any evidence that suggests that it is

> > > presentation of concepts of Parashara in abbreviated manner.

> > > Could you point to those sutras that do this?

> > <==

> > Almost every sutra of the text Jaimini sutra is proof of the same.

> > Please read through the commentary for some of the initial slokas

of

> > Jaimini sutra I wrote. The link for the pdf file is-

> > http://rapidshare.com36169108/Jaimini_Sutra_-

_Beginning.pdf

> > <http://rapidshare.com36169108/Jaimini_Sutra_-

_Beginning.pdf>

> >

> > P.S. Note that I have fullfilled my word about " pdf file about the

> > same " given earlier.

> > Love,

> > Sreenadh

> >

> > <%40>, " Sreenadh " <sreesog@>

wrote:

> > >

> > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji,

> > > It is not Parashara of Mahabharata (the father of Vyasa) who

wrote

> > > Parasara Hora. But a Parasara who lived around BC 1400 wrote

Parasara

> > > Sidhanta, Parasara Hora and Parasara Samhita, as the proof for

the

> > > same is provided by an availabe sloka of Parasara Samhita.

> > > BPHS definitely mentions the names of Parasara and Mitreya, and

> > > since the book is as told by Parasara and that is why the name

Brihat

> > > Parasara Hora Sastra is attributed to it.

> > > Coming to Jaimini sutra, the text does not even fulfill the

prime

> > > condition for a Sutra text. As per the definition-

> > > " Alpaksharam Aasannigdtham Sutram Sutravido vidu "

> > > [A sutra should contain less number of characters and the

meaning of

> > > the sutra should be crystal clear]

> > > Even though the sutras in Jaimini sutra contains less number of

> > > characters, they does not satisfy the second condition the

meaning

> > > should be unambiguous and crystal clear.

> > > Look at any other sutra text - such as Brigu Sutra in Astrology,

> > > Sutras of Patanjali in grammar, Yoga Sutras of Patanjali,

Chanakya

> > > Sutra etc - you will see the great difference between their

approach

> > > and presentation and the mere 'Abbreviation effort' of Jaimini.

> > >

> > > Love,

> > > Sreenadh

> > >

> > <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Dear Sreenadh,

> > > >

> > > > Carrying the logic further what proof is there that the

Parashara who

> > > > was father of Vyasa wrote the BPHS? Nobody wrote books in

those days

> > > > they were memorized and carried by word of mouth. Even BPHS

does not

> > > > mention that being its name.

> > > >

> > > > I think there is a bit of difference between sutras and

shlokas. I do

> > > > not think there is any evidence that suggests that it is

> > > presentation of

> > > > concepts of Parashara in abbreviated manner. Could you point

to those

> > > > sutras that do this?

> > > >

> > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > >

> > > > Sreenadh wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji,

> > > > > I have another question - what proof is there to say that

the book

> > > > > is written by sage Jaimini? The book does not even mention

the

> > auther,

> > > > > then what to say about his guru?

> > > > > The book 'Jaimini Sutra' is written by a student of some

teacher

> > > > > (let us positively hope that it is Jaimini), and collects

and

> > presents

> > > > > the advice given by the teacher, as indicated by the first

sutra of

> > > > > the text itself. One more thing - where in the book it is

mentioned

> > > > > that the name of the book is 'Jaimini Sutra'?

> > > > > But the internal proof - the slokas, the terminology,

concepts

> > > > > described etc - clearly tells us that it an effort to

present the

> > > > > concepts presented by Parasara in an abriviated manner. This

> > being the

> > > > > situation, I too would agree to disagree...

> > > > > P.S: I am uploading my thoughts on some of the intial

slokas of

> > > > > Jaimini sutra, and the link is provided in the next post.

> > > > > Love,

> > > > > Sreenadh

> > > > >

> > <%40>

> > > > > <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Dear Sreenadh,

> > > > > >

> > > > > > I could have agreed to the contention had Jaimini

mentioned

> > > somewhere

> > > > > > about Parashara having been his Guru, as was the practice

in

> > ancient

> > > > > > sages. Even Parashara tells his having given the knowledge

> > > received by

> > > > > > Shaunaka who got it through Garga who in turn received it

through

> > > > > > Narada. But then I am an obstinate old person who was

taught

> > to base

> > > > > his

> > > > > > judgement of the ancient astrological texts, on both

Pramana and

> > > tarka.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > So let us agree to disagree on this.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Regards,

> > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Sreenadh wrote:

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Dear Chandrasekhar ji,

> > > > > > > 1)Even though Jaimini sutra provides a special set of

> > > principles as

> > > > > > > compared to the available (printed) BPHS, there are many

> > > slokas that

> > > > > > > supports the same, as available from commentaries of

Jaimini

> > sutra

> > > > > > > and virdha karikas.

> > > > > > > There are many slokas of Parasara available, about many

such

> > > > > > > concepts that are not present in the printed BPHS, but

> > present in

> > > > > > > various commentaries of Jaimini sutra.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > 2) It is not the simple study of Argala concept alone

that

> > > helps us

> > > > > > > in reaching the conclusion that " Jaimini sutra is a

guide and

> > > > > > > extension of BPHS, that tries to teach Parasara's

concepts " , but

> > > > > > > rather-

> > > > > > > * the study of the whole book and its approach

> > > > > > > * comparison of concepts and words used within it

> > > > > > > * the methodology of presentation followed in the book

> > > > > > > and many more.

> > > > > > > Love,

> > > > > > > Sreenadh

> > > > > > >

> > <%40>

> > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> > > > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Dear Sreenadh,

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > But if the two are giving different sets of

principles, as

> > > > > > > indicated by

> > > > > > > > you in another mail, then how do you verify the

veracity

> > of the

> > > > > > > sutras.

> > > > > > > > Anyway, I still do not find enough evidence to think

that

> > > Parashara

> > > > > > > is

> > > > > > > > Anargala and Jaimini is Argala. Only Lord Shiva is

Anargala

> > > and we

> > > > > > > do

> > > > > > > > not have access to him.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Sreenadh wrote:

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji,

> > > > > > > > > I think the interpretation of Jaimini sutras become

far more

> > > > > > > easier

> > > > > > > > > if we find the bolt and the key.

> > > > > > > > > * The Bolt is: Jaimini sutra is not an independent

text,

> > > it is a

> > > > > > > > > guide to BPHS concepts, extending them a bit.

> > > > > > > > > * The Key is: Refer to BPHS first always for

clarity, and

> > > then try

> > > > > > > > > unlocking Jaimini sutra with the same.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > P.S: May be BPHS is Anargala and Jaimini sutra is

the

> > > Argala. )

> > > > > > > > > Love,

> > > > > > > > > Sreenadh

> > > > > > > > >

> > <%40>

> > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > <%40>,

Chandrashekhar

> > > > > > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > If you draw a south indian style chart you will

find

> > > that the

> > > > > > > signs

> > > > > > > > > do

> > > > > > > > > > aspect the ones in front of them. Parshva means

side of

> > > the body

> > > > > > > > > and the

> > > > > > > > > > second sutra tells that they also aspect the

signs to

> > their

> > > > > > > side.

> > > > > > > > > The

> > > > > > > > > > interpretation of sutras is always difficult.

However

> > > there are

> > > > > > > > > Vriddha

> > > > > > > > > > Karikas that make the situation quite crystal

clear.

> > > Parashara

> > > > > > > also

> > > > > > > > > uses

> > > > > > > > > > the same terminology but goes on th explain that

the

> > > adjacent

> > > > > > > rasis

> > > > > > > > > are

> > > > > > > > > > not aspected upon and the explanation of the rasi

> > aspect is

> > > > > > > > > clarified

> > > > > > > > > > beyond doubt by him. Krishnanand Saraswati, in his

> > > commentary on

> > > > > > > > > Jaimini

> > > > > > > > > > sutras also express the same opinion. The grahas

> > > occupying the

> > > > > > > > > rasis

> > > > > > > > > > also have identical aspects as those of the rasis.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Take care,

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Dear shri Sreenadh & Respected members

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > It is really informative to read your recent

> > > historical write

> > > > > > > up's

> > > > > > > > > > > regarding Astrology(Arsha paramparya and

> > > > > > > Parashara/Jaimini).Thank

> > > > > > > > > > > you very much.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > In similar lines to Argala,i have a fundamental

doubt

> > > > > > > regarding

> > > > > > > > > > > Rashi drishtis.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Let me quote from the translation done by Shri

Surya

> > > Narain

> > > > > > > Rao.

> > > > > > > > > > > SU.2.-Abhipasyanti rikshani. The zodiacal signs

aspect

> > > each

> > > > > > > other

> > > > > > > > > > > (in their front). SU. 3.-Parswabhe cha.

> > Excepting.the next

> > > > > > > > > zodiacal

> > > > > > > > > > > signs to them. SU. 4.- ?ihann ishthascha

tadvat. Those

> > > planets

> > > > > > > > > which

> > > > > > > > > > > occupy such signs will also aspect the planets

found

> > > in such

> > > > > > > > > houses.

> > > > > > > > > > > Respected translator makes the following HONEST

> > > statement -

> > > > > > > ''The

> > > > > > > > > > > zodiacal signs aspect each other which are in

their

> > > FRONT. I

> > > > > > > DO

> > > > > > > > > NOT

> > > > > > > > > > > exactly understand what is meant by the word

> > > FRONT''.Then he

> > > > > > > says

> > > > > > > > > > > commentators observe - Mesha has

Vrishchika,Mithuna has

> > > > > > > > > > > Thula .....Meena has Mithuna as their front

signs.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Pls see my next mail for personal views.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Regds

> > > > > > > > > > > Pradeep

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > <%40>

> > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > <%

40>, " Sreenadh "

> > > <sreesog@>

> > > > > > > > > wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > Dear All,

> > > > > > > > > > > > What is Argala? What is the popular opinion

about

> > > the same?

> > > > > > > In

> > > > > > > > > > > what

> > > > > > > > > > > > situations it is applicable? Are there any

> > > contradictions

> > > > > > > > > between

> > > > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > definition of Argala by Parasara and Jaimini?

What

> > > is your

> > > > > > > > > > > opinion?

> > > > > > > > > > > > Please clarify.

> > > > > > > > > > > > Regards,

> > > > > > > > > > > > Sreenadh

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > -------------------------

> > > > > > > > > ------

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.8.9/832 -

> > > Release Date:

> > > > > > > > > 6/4/2007 6:43 PM

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been

removed]

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > -------------------

------

> > > > > > > ------

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.8.9/832 -

Release

> > Date:

> > > > > > > 6/4/2007 6:43 PM

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

June 11, 2007

Dear Chandrashekhar ji,

==>

I think you have, also, not read the interpretation given by

Bhattotpala

the learned commentator on Brihat jataka. He clearly tells that the

drishtis are to be taken in Dwadashamsha and navamsha as in the rasi

chart in case of results told when Chandra is aspected by Surya and

other grahas also are obtained in navamsha and DwaadashaMsha.

Dashaadhyaayi is supposed to be commentary on the first 10

adhyaayas of Brihatjataka and the shloka I quoted is appearing in the

19th adhyaaya. So are you certain that Dashaadhyaayi interprets the

same shloka?

<==

Prasnamarga says " Bhattolapaladi rachta vivitee vilokya, spashtam

karotu hridi daivavidarthamasya " meaning, An astrologer should

clarify the meaning of Varaha hora slokas by reading commentries like

the one written by " Bhattolpala " . Prasamarga also states that the

astrologer should be well versed in Dasadhayayi and understand it

thoroughly.

So I don't think Bhattolpala will commit such a mistake! I do have

the copy of Sanskrit Bhattolpala commentary for Brihat Jataka with

me. Can you please provide the chapter and sloka number under

discussion. I will cross check and respond back.

By the way even though Dasadhyayi is a commentary based on the first

10 chapters of Brihajjataka, it deals with almost all the subjects

dealt with in Brihat jataka, and there fore should be considered as

equivalent to a complete commentary. Dasadhyayi is NOT a mere

commentary of 10 chapters.

Love,

Sreenadh

, Chandrashekhar

<chandrashekhar46 wrote:

>

> Dear Pradeep,

>

> I think we are talking at cross purposes. Dashaadhyaayi may not be

the

> right text to understand rasi drishti as that concept does not

appear in

> Brihat jataka.

>

> having said that if Dashaadhyaayi is to be used to understand

aspects in

> Navamsha then that is the right approach. Now the statement that

grahas

> have navamshaka in 12 rasis is not something that is unique to

> Dashaadhyaayi. That is said in all texts. It means that as grahas

own

> rasis so do they own navamshas within certain rasis. But when you

say

> that these can only be seen in reference to rasis, then you are

saying

> something that is different from what Satyacharya says. He as well

as

> the author of Dashaadhyaayi is talking about Chandra navamsha being

> considered in the same manner as Chandra rasi for Sunapha/

> anapha/Durudhara yoga (or rather cancellation of Kemadruma) as

indicated

> by you. This means that the graha does not have to be in the next

> navamsha but in Mithuna or Simha or both navamsha in any of the

rasis

> that those navamsha fall in. here then is a clear break between

> infallible rasi amsha relation that is generally considered and

this

> only proves that not every time rasi navamsha are to be read only

with

> respect to the rasi holding the graha.

>

> I think you have, also, not read the interpretation given by

Bhattotpala

> the learned commentator on Brihat jataka. He clearly tells that the

> drishtis are to be taken in Dwadashamsha and navamsha as in the

rasi

> chart in case of results told when Chandra is aspected by Surya and

> other grahas also are obtained in navamsha and DwaadashaMsha.

> Dashaadhyaayi is supposed to be commentary on the first 10

adhyaayas of

> Brihatjataka and the shloka I quoted is appearing in the 19th

adhyaaya.

> So are you certain that Dashaadhyaayi interprets the same shloka?

>

> As to looking at Karakamsha lagna as the navamsha rasi holding

Chara

> Atmakaraka in rasi chart is concerned, would the sages not have

called

> it as Karaka lagna instead of Karakamsha lagna? One must remember

that

> when we are talking of Karakamsha we are talking about an arc of 3

> degrees 20 minutes and not 30 degrees, which is what the rasi

chakra

> rasi would be. Other Chara Karakas will also occupy such arcs of 3

> degrees 20 minutes and they could be within the same rasi also or

in the

> rasi next to it. How are we now going to read them in the Rasi

chart is

> something that must be thought over. Merely saying that Karakamsha

Lagna

> should be read in rasi chakra may take us away from this basic

truth of

> these sensitive points. Again why should one then look at 7th from

lagna

> navamsha for spouse, as agreed by you, if everything is to be

mapped

> back to rasi chart needs to be thought over. The 7th from lagna

navamsha

> could lie within the lagna rasi itself and mapping it back to the

> benefic lagna rasi would mean it being a benefic even if it falls

in

> malefic navamsha. Kshetra being rasi, the moment you map it back to

Rasi

> chart, it will not be in malefic kshetra. Now this means that the

> principles given in Brihat jataka or Dashaadhyaayi do not hold

good. I

> am sure you do not mean that.

>

> By the way, I have already said that the drishti in navamsha or for

that

> matter dwadashaamsha is to be viewed as multiples of the arc of

zodiac

> represented by each of such division. That is the Amsha sambandha

that

> the sages refer to.

>

> Take care,

> Chandrashekhar.

>

> vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> >

> > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> >

> > Thanks for the explanations on Rashi drishti.But some how i feel,i

> > have not been clear enough.I have understood the fact that ,it is

the

> > rashis that decide the drishti and grahas placed can aspect

because

> > of the said rashi drishti.No dispute here.Kindly see the examples

i

> > have provided.

> >

> > Aries aspect Leo.Jupiter and Saturn are not placed there.As per

> > definition of Rashi drishti,only the grahas placed there can

aspect

> > because of aspects between dispositing rashis.Hope you

understand.In

> > the shlokas from dashadhyayi it has been explained that grahas

have

> > amshaka in meshadi dwadasha ksehthras.Rashi drishti talks about

> > planets placed in the Rashi and not those having amshaka sambandha

> > there.

> >

> > Also it is mentioned in dashadhyayi,that some acharyas like jeeva

> > sharma says kemadruma,does not happen if there is a graha in

chandra

> > kendra or in chandra NAVAMSHAKA rashi.Also for Sunabha etc if a

> > planet is placed in 2/12 etc from Chandra NAVAMSHAKA Rashi -

> > explaining how navamsha/rashi are related and how they are to be

> > interpreted.

> >

> > Regarding your shloka - It is mentioned that,check the hora in

which

> > chandra is placed(it can be of surya or chandra ).Drishti from

> > planets in that Hora is good for Chandra.Similarly drishti from

> > drekkanadhipathi of Chandra is good.Similarly from planets placed

in

> > the friendly kshethras of chandra is good.

> > Also it says,the results for aspects to chandra having

dwadashamshaka

> > in meshadi dwadasha rashis are the same as when placed in those

> > rashis.In all these places and from numerous shlokas it has been

made

> > clear that amshaka is happening within the same rashi chakra and

> > therefore one will have no confusion in attributing drishties,as

they

> > are seen in rashi chakra.

> >

> > Karakamsha

> > There is no place where it is mentioned that results are to be

read

> > from navamsha arrangement.When we read the texts in full we see

how

> > the amsha of a graha and aspect on them are studied.Karakamsha is

> > again the amsha of a planet.A Bhava can only be studied with

> > reference to a Rashi.This Rashi can be Karakamsha lagna,navamsha

> > lagna etc.This is explained better in the following shloka.As you

> > know one learned Guru had tried to get away with the KA usage

amshaka

> > and amsha.They are purely pointing to frame of reference -

> > Bhaumarkshe ,Bhaumashe and LagnamshaKA rashi explains this.

> >

> > Sthree jatakadhyaya - 10th Shloka.

> >

> > As i have said before,numbers 1/4/7 etc are representing the

order of

> > tattwas in which vargas of a Rashi are constituted.This is another

> > reason why Bhavat Bhavam is possible.Every nth rashi from a

reference

> > (chandra lagna,karakamsha lagna etc )have a particular

significance

> > and i have no dispute here.So is the case with Navamsha

Lagna.That is

> > why i have said one can see 1,7,10 etc in rashi chakra from Lagna

> > navamsha.

> >

> > In the 10th shloka in Stree jatakadhyaya too the case is no

> > different.One has to find if the amshaka of the 7th from

lagnamsha is

> > falling in Kuja kshethra.Check if Shanis is aspecting this

> > Kujakshethra - Yoni Roga results.Whether you count from Rashi or

> > navamsha it gives the same result - but the important point to

note

> > is 7th from lagna navamsha reference points to wife.It falls in a

> > malefic kshethra and has malefic drishti.Acharya also asked us to

> > compare the strengths of 7th bhava as well as the above said

> > kshethra.Stronger one prevails.This similar to lagna rashi having

> > strength or lagnamshaka rashi having strength.Only difference is

> > strength of 7th from lagnamshaka rashi is considered as 7th refers

> > to wife.Bhavat Bhavam from lagna navamsha.Aspect is seen from

shani

> > to the said Kuja kshethra.

> >

> > I feel the main confusion that we are having is because of not

> > treating amshas as amshaka sambandhas within the same 12

Rashis.This

> > has been clearly explained by the texts that i read.

> >

> > Thanks for the trust that you have placed in me

> >

> > Respect

> > Pradeep

> >

> > <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > >

> > > Dear Pradeep,

> > >

> > > I am glad you got the diagram and could decipher it well.

> > >

> > > I think there is some confusion about rasi drishti in your

mind. I

> > think

> > > I have also said that the rasi drishti is a mutual static

relation

> > > between rasis due to their nature, unaffected by the graha's

> > placement.

> > > If grahas also happen to be in an aspecting rasi then that graha

> > also

> > > aspects, is the dictum. If you look at aspects as influences,

that

> > may

> > > be easier to understand. The difference between the graha and

rasi

> > > drishti may be looked at this way. If one is standing on the

roof

> > of a

> > > building, one can look at the direction one wants to look at and

> > this is

> > > like graha drishti where the aspects are per the nature of the

> > > individual graha irrespective of the rasi occupied. If how ever

one

> > is

> > > in a room with only three windows, no matter who you are you can

> > only

> > > look out through those windows only and can see, or in other

words

> > > influence, only the area allowed by that room with its own

specific

> > > window placement.

> > >

> > > So rasi drishti talks about the ability of a rasi to influence

> > some

> > > other rasis and also making the grahas occupying them also to

> > influence

> > > those rasis.

> > >

> > > I have already sent you some shlokas that indicate the yogas

> > occurring

> > > without reference to rasis occupied by grahas and only based on

the

> > > navamshas occupied by them. If you look at the shloka 10 of

> > > streejatakaadhyaaya you will also see that the results for rasi

or

> > > navamsha in the 7th of rasi of various grahas are identical. So

the

> > > bhavas on navamshas are obviously seen as identical to that of

rasi

> > > chakra and this is chart that I said one can look at on a

different

> > > basis than other D-charts. There is also a shloka in

Brihatjataka

> > that

> > > indicates that the results told when Chandra is aspected by

Surya

> > and

> > > other grahas also are obtained in navamsha and DvaadashaMsha

> > indicating

> > > drishtis in those D-Charts. I am giving the shloka below, for

ready

> > > reference. As usual the first and alternate line after that is

in

> > > Sanskrit 99 fonts and second line and alternate from it are in

URW

> > > Palladio IT fonts. The shloka is from drishti adhayaaya. I would

> > like to

> > > know how Dashaadhyaayi has translated this, as I do not have

that

> > text

> > > with me.

> > >

> > > haerez]RdlaiïtE> zuÉkrae +ò> zzI tÌt-

> > > horeçarkñadaläçritaiù çubhakaro dåñöaù çaçé tadgata-

> > > ô(<ze tTpitiÉ> suùÑvngEvaR vIi]t> zSyte,

> > > stryaàçe tatpatibhiù suhådbhavanagairvä vékñitaù çasyate|

> > > yTàae´< àitraizvI][)l< tdoeÖadza<ze Sm & t<

> > > yatproktaà pratiräçivékñaëaphalaà taddvädaçäàçe småtaà

> > > suyaR*Ervlaeikte=ip zizin }ey< nva<ze:vt>.19,4.

> > > suryädyairavalokite'pi çaçini jïeyaà naväàçeñvataù||19|4||

> > >

> > > You can also find yogas described by Varahamihira about Moon

from

> > sama

> > > rasi in mutual aspect to Sun in Vishama rasi leading to some

> > results and

> > > so on. If you think about the fact that both Moon and Sun have

only

> > 7th

> > > house aspect as graha drishti, how are those yogas possible, if

not

> > for

> > > rasi drishti. Think about this.

> > >

> > > I can not comment on views of KNR or Sanjay Rath as everybody

has a

> > > right to his own views. I have never held any brief for secret

> > Parampara

> > > as I have never believed that the divine knowledge was meant to

be

> > > secret, it being taught to all students in days long gone by.

> > >

> > > There is no clear cut reference for the need to read Karakamsha

in

> > rasi

> > > chart that I have seen so far. To me the very work Karakamsha

means

> > the

> > > amsha occupied by the karaka and amsha is seen in navamsha

> > generally. If

> > > someone points a reference in an astro text making it necessary

to

> > see

> > > Karakamsha in rasi chakra only, I could always correct my views,

> > the

> > > weight of authority so quoted, so warranting it.

> > >

> > > I have never misunderstood you as I know you for a true seeker

of

> > knowledge.

> > >

> > > Take care,

> > > Chandrashekhar

> > >

> > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > >

> > > > Thanks a lot for the diagram.Being a Mechanical engineer i

feel

> > you

> > > > would had done lots of machine drawing!!.

> > > > As i am having only a malayalam translation of BPHS,written by

> > late

> > > > Professor Muthuswamy,written in many parts,and as i am not

having

> > all

> > > > those parts with me here,diagram was new to me.It wasreally

> > > > helpful.Infact i had tried to draw a diagram based on

directions

> > and

> > > > did find a linear link,as i had mentioned in my first mail

> > relating

> > > > to this thread.This diagram thus clear my doubts.Interstingly

as

> > we

> > > > have understood,drishties are based on spatial/physical

> > > > disposition.This also confirms why Graha drishti is

impossible,in

> > a

> > > > diagram holding amsha rashi relations of our Lagna and

planets.

> > > >

> > > > Now the next point is Rashi drishti.Suppose Mars is placed in

> > Aries

> > > > and Sun is in Leo,then as per definition from sage Mars

aspects

> > > > Sun.Now let us assume Jupiter is having navamsha in Aries and

> > Saturn

> > > > in Leo.As per the explanation given by you,Jupiter should

aspect

> > > > Saturn.I personally with all due respect have doubts and

tends and

> > > > prefer a disagreement.Going by the same rules of spatial

> > > > arrangement - as Jupiter and Saturn are placed somewhere else

they

> > > > cannot effect an aspect by virtue of aspects between Aries and

> > > > Leo.The placement in those Rashis gives such a capacity.Hope

i am

> > > > clear.

> > > >

> > > > For the same reason,i have always been supporting K.N.Raojis

views

> > > > about Karakamsha to be read in Rashi chakra.There are numerous

> > > > shlokas relating to Karakamsha,involving aspects of planets.My

> > > > personal view is one has to first reach an agreement on

whether

> > rashi

> > > > drishti or graha drishti is the apt one.I can agree if you say

> > Rashi

> > > > drishti is possible as both the drishties are valid.Then

there is

> > a

> > > > major difference.If we consider this from a navamsha

arrangement -

> > > > Rashi dristies taken are violating rule as mentioned

above.Thus

> > they

> > > > have to be the Graha PLACEMENTS in rashi chakra w.r to

Karakamsha

> > > > lagna ,which is able to cast aspects.

> > > >

> > > > I would also like to point out that i feel,it is Shri Sanjay

Rath

> > who

> > > > has proposed this theory and such a kind of drishti pattern

> > (isolated

> > > > amsha diagrams). But i can say that one will be reluctant to

> > accept

> > > > it as from parampara,as there were numerous cases where shri

Rath

> > > > considered garaha drishti in varga arrangements in the

past,before

> > > > resorting to rashi drishti,which again is used

inappropriately as

> > per

> > > > my personal view.

> > > >

> > > > Kindly pardon if have committed any errors here.As you are

> > aware,the

> > > > intention is only to gain true knowledge.No matter whetehr i

am

> > wrong

> > > > or other learned souls.

> > > >

> > > > Respect

> > > > Pradeep

> > > >

> > <%40>

> > > > <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > >

> > > > > I have sent the diagram to your personal address, as

desired.

> > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > >

> > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Thanks for mail.Kindly send the diagram to

vijayadas_pradeep@

> > > > > > <vijayadas_pradeep%40>

> > > > > > as i have opted for reading from the group site.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Respect

> > > > > > Pradeep

> > <%40>

> > > > <%40>

> > > > > > <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> > > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > > > > The reference to south indian chart is actually to just

> > point

> > > > out

> > > > > > that

> > > > > > > there are more than one style of charts that have to be

> > > > considered

> > > > > > when

> > > > > > > we consider interpretation of abhipashyanti rikshaani.

All

> > other

> > > > > > rasis

> > > > > > > aspecting each other the cardinal signs also aspect each

> > others

> > > > > > from

> > > > > > > their position of being in a corner. So the side wise

view

> > is on

> > > > > > the

> > > > > > > Rasis not aspected by other group of rasis, which lead

to

> > their

> > > > > > > aspecting only other cardinal rasis.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > There is a circular diagram that explains this concept

of

> > > > aspect to

> > > > > > > rasis in front and sides, barring the adjacent rasis,

> > > > beautifully

> > > > > > and I

> > > > > > > have tried to draw it for you and it is attached for

your

> > > > > > information in

> > > > > > > .doc format. Only you will have to pardon my limited

skills

> > with

> > > > > > drawing

> > > > > > > tools. The concept is actually elaborated at length by

both

> > > > > > Parashara

> > > > > > > and also in Vriddha karikas. So there is no ambiguity

in the

> > > > matter.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Take care,

> > > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Thanks for the explanation.Even if we take South

Indian

> > > > > > chart,there

> > > > > > > > is a problem.

> > > > > > > > If we say front,then why is Sag not aspecting

> > Aquarius,which

> > > > is on

> > > > > > > > front,but aspects Meena which comes after

Aqua.Similarly

> > > > Kanya and

> > > > > > > > Karka.similarly there are other concerns.

> > > > > > > > As you have mentioned,commentators might have been

> > influenced

> > > > by

> > > > > > > > south indian style.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Respect

> > > > > > > > Pradeep

> > > > > > > >

> > <%40>

> > > > <%40>

> > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > <%40>,

Chandrashekhar

> > > > > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > If you draw a south indian style chart you will find

> > that

> > > > the

> > > > > > signs

> > > > > > > > do

> > > > > > > > > aspect the ones in front of them. Parshva means

side of

> > the

> > > > body

> > > > > > > > and the

> > > > > > > > > second sutra tells that they also aspect the signs

to

> > their

> > > > > > side.

> > > > > > > > The

> > > > > > > > > interpretation of sutras is always difficult.

However

> > there

> > > > are

> > > > > > > > Vriddha

> > > > > > > > > Karikas that make the situation quite crystal clear.

> > > > Parashara

> > > > > > also

> > > > > > > > uses

> > > > > > > > > the same terminology but goes on th explain that the

> > > > adjacent

> > > > > > rasis

> > > > > > > > are

> > > > > > > > > not aspected upon and the explanation of the rasi

> > aspect is

> > > > > > > > clarified

> > > > > > > > > beyond doubt by him. Krishnanand Saraswati, in his

> > > > commentary on

> > > > > > > > Jaimini

> > > > > > > > > sutras also express the same opinion. The grahas

> > occupying

> > > > the

> > > > > > > > rasis

> > > > > > > > > also have identical aspects as those of the rasis.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Take care,

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Dear shri Sreenadh & Respected members

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > It is really informative to read your recent

> > historical

> > > > write

> > > > > > up's

> > > > > > > > > > regarding Astrology(Arsha paramparya and

> > > > > > Parashara/Jaimini).Thank

> > > > > > > > > > you very much.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > In similar lines to Argala,i have a fundamental

doubt

> > > > > > regarding

> > > > > > > > > > Rashi drishtis.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Let me quote from the translation done by Shri

Surya

> > > > Narain

> > > > > > Rao.

> > > > > > > > > > SU.2.-Abhipasyanti rikshani. The zodiacal signs

aspect

> > > > each

> > > > > > other

> > > > > > > > > > (in their front). SU. 3.-Parswabhe cha.

Excepting.the

> > next

> > > > > > > > zodiacal

> > > > > > > > > > signs to them. SU. 4.- ?ihann ishthascha tadvat.

Those

> > > > planets

> > > > > > > > which

> > > > > > > > > > occupy such signs will also aspect the planets

found

> > in

> > > > such

> > > > > > > > houses.

> > > > > > > > > > Respected translator makes the following HONEST

> > > > statement -

> > > > > > ''The

> > > > > > > > > > zodiacal signs aspect each other which are in

their

> > > > FRONT. I

> > > > > > DO

> > > > > > > > NOT

> > > > > > > > > > exactly understand what is meant by the word

> > FRONT''.Then

> > > > he

> > > > > > says

> > > > > > > > > > commentators observe - Mesha has

Vrishchika,Mithuna

> > has

> > > > > > > > > > Thula .....Meena has Mithuna as their front signs.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Pls see my next mail for personal views.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Regds

> > > > > > > > > > Pradeep

> > > > > > > > > >

> > <%40>

> > > > <%40>

> > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > <%

40>, " Sreenadh "

> > > > <sreesog@>

> > > > > > > > wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Dear All,

> > > > > > > > > > > What is Argala? What is the popular opinion

about

> > the

> > > > same?

> > > > > > In

> > > > > > > > > > what

> > > > > > > > > > > situations it is applicable? Are there any

> > > > contradictions

> > > > > > > > between

> > > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > definition of Argala by Parasara and Jaimini?

What

> > is

> > > > your

> > > > > > > > > > opinion?

> > > > > > > > > > > Please clarify.

> > > > > > > > > > > Regards,

> > > > > > > > > > > Sreenadh

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > -----------------

----

> > ----

> > > > > > > > ------

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.8.9/832 -

> > Release

> > > > Date:

> > > > > > > > 6/4/2007 6:43 PM

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been

removed]

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > ---------------------

----

> > > > > > ------

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.8.9/832 -

Release

> > Date:

> > > > > > 6/4/2007 6:43 PM

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

June 11, 2007

Dear Sreenadh,

My comments in red, below what you said (in quotes).

" Ok. With enough supporting evidence it could, also extend the info

that BPHS could be neither original nor complete. But for sure it a

very useful, authentic, valuable, resource, that depict the system

followed by Parasara school. "

I agree that the text does prove to be invaluable in understanding the

basic principles of astrology. No doubt about it.

*******

" * Presents of a certain yoga in Yudhishthira's horasope in BPHS.*

indicating him being alive at the time of Mahabharata.That is new

knowledge to me - please provide the chapter number and sloka number; I

will refer to BPHS to have a better idea about the same. "

Oh! I thought you knew that one. If you have the Santanam edition

(Ranjan Publication) too, look at shloka 32 chapter 41 where not only it

is said that in the present days (time when the text was recited to

Maitreya) Yudhishthira has Parijatamsha related to rajyoga causing

grahas, it it further told that in future Shalivahana shall have similar

yoga.

*******

" There is a better chance for the same; but even when fragmented the

bits and pieces of the ancient knowledge available through such texts

should be valued very much. Remember that the ancient epics speaks and

quotes shlokas from " Agneya Purana " and what we have today is " Agni

Purana " and " Vahni Purana " and many slokas of " Agneya Purana " quoted by

other Puranas are missing in both of them. It could be the case with

many other texts - even astrological classics like BPHS. "

I am not sure Agneya Purana is one of the 18 mahapuranas. But that is

besides the point of discussion. If you think that BPHS is only a myriad

collection of shlokas and not given by Parashara, then the insistence

that Jaimini Sutras being an attempt by Jaimini to spread the teaching

of Parashara is even more questionable. Or that is how I would look at it.

********

" Please refer to the previous mail - I said that " Parasara Samhita " (not

BPHS) provides us with a sloka that helps us in determining the

date of Parasara. The sloka is quoted by Bhattolpala in the commentary

of Brihat Samhita. I have written a detailed write up on the same in

vedic astrology group long time back, If you do a search there you will

get it for sure. (As time permits I too will try to locate it, to save

my self from re-writing it again) Of course Jaimini Sutras are in Sutra

form - but not sutras that completely satisfies the definition of

Sutras. My argument was that it is because, Jaimini sutra was not an

original work but rather an teaching/abbreviation effort of unique

concepts discussed by Parasara. "

But you do say at the end of your pdf document that you have uses

Sitaram Jha edition for reference. Anyway, could you indicate the

chapter of Brihat Samhita in the commentary of which Bhattotpala has

given the shloka you have indicated. This is for the first time I have

learnt that Brihat samhita contains reference to Argalas. I would be

obliged if you could give the reference to the Shloka of Brihat Samhita

for which Bhattotpala thought it fit to refer to what Parashara said

about Argalas. This would add to my knowledge. Could you also give me

the address of the publisher of the commentary of Bhattotpala on Brihat

samhita? I have his commentary on Brihat jataka, but Brihat samhita

commentary from Bhattotpala is something that I have heard so late in my

life that I would like to add it to my library. Whether Jaimini sutras

satisfies condition of sutras is something that is your opinion but it

does not appear to be supported by other learned commentators. If this

logic is to be accepted then even brahmasutras may not qualify to be

called as sutras, since some are single word and others quite long.

That is why I said let us agree to disagree.

Take care,

Chandrashekhar.

Sreenadh wrote:

>

> Dear Chandrashekhar ji,

>

> ==>

> > I think it has been mentioned by the early acharyas of Kashi

> > Vishwavidyalaya, who compiled the original shlokas of the BPHS,

> > that the manuscripts that they based BPHS on were not

> > titled " Brihad Paraashara Hora Shastra " .

> <==

> Ok. With enough supporting evidence it could, also extend the info

> that BPHS could be neither original nor complete. But for sure it a

> very useful, authentic, valuable, resource, that depict the system

> followed by Parasara school.

>

> ==>

> > The conjecture of Parashara who gave the current text

> > being of 1400 b.c. must remain a conjecture as the text mentions

> > that Yudhishthira is having a certain yoga and enumerates others

> > who had similar yogas in the text indicating him being alive at the

> > time of Mahabharata. Mahabharata ends with death of Lord Krishna or

> > soon after that which is around 3102 B. C. If this is not

> > acceptable then the contents of the texts must have been collection

> > of myriad granthas and nothing more.

> <==

> * Presents of a certain yoga in Yudhishtira's horasope in BPHS.

> * indicating him being alive at the time of Mahabharata.

> That is new knowledge to me - please provide the chapter number and

> sloka number; I will refer to BPHS to have a better idea about the

> same.

>

> ==>

> > If this is not

> > acceptable then the contents of the texts must have been collection

> > of myriad granthas and nothing more.

> <==

> There is a better chance for the same; but even when fragmented the

> bits and pieces of the ancient knowledge available through such texts

> should be valued very much. Remember that the ancient epics speaks

> and quotes slokas from " Agneya Purana " and what we have today

> is " Agni Purana " and " Vahni Purana " and many slokas of " Agneya

> Purana " quoted by other Puranas are missing in both of them. It could

> be the case with many other texts - even astrological classics like

> BPHS.

> ==>

> > If you could quote the shloka in Paraashari that gives the

> > date of the text and it having been written by Parashara I would be

> > obliged much. The edition which gives those shlokas may also be

> > quoted, so that checking them will be easy.

> <==

> Please refer to the previous mail - I said that " Parasara Samhita "

> (not BPHS) provides us with a sloka that helps us in determining the

> date of Parasara. The sloka is quoted by Bhattolpala in the

> commentary of Brihat Samhita. I have written a detailed write up on

> the same in vedic astrology group long time back, If you do a search

> there you will get it for sure. (As time permits I too will try to

> locate it, to save my self from re-writing it again)

> Of course Jaimini Sutras are in Sutra form - but not sutras that

> completely satisfies the definition of Sutras. My argument was that

> it is because, Jaimini sutra was not an original work but rather an

> teaching/abbreviation effort of unique concepts discussed by Parasara.

>

> ==>

> > That is why I said let us agree to disagree.

> <==

> Dear Chandrashekhar ji, agreement or disagreement shouldn't be a pre-

> condition; but a natural result. And we are always free to agree,

> disagree, or agree to diagree - if not friendship what can give us

> that freedom.

> Love,

> Sreenadh

>

> <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> <chandrashekhar46 wrote:

> >

> > Dear Sreenadh,

> >

> > I think it has been mentioned by the early acharyas of Kashi

> > Vishwavidyalaya, who compiled the original shlokas of the BPHS,

> that the

> > manuscripts that they based BPHS on were not titled " Brihad

> Paraashara

> > Hora Shastra " . The conjecture of Parashara who gave the current

> text

> > being of 1400 b.c. must remain a conjecture as the text mentions

> that

> > Yudhishthira is having a certain yoga and enumerates others who had

> > similar yogas in the text indicating him being alive at the time of

> > Mahabharata. Mahabharata ends with death of Lord Krishna or soon

> after

> > that which is around 3102 B. C. If this is not acceptable then the

> > contents of the texts must have been collection of myriad granthas

> and

> > nothing more. If you could quote the shloka in Paraashari that

> gives the

> > date of the text and it having been written by Parashara I would be

> > obliged much. The edition which gives those shlokas may also be

> quoted,

> > so that checking them will be easy.

> >

> > The definition of sutras given by you is right. But the clarity is

> for

> > ones who are well versed in that science and not for everyone, as

> > guarding the divine knowledge was the reason sutras have brevity.

> So I

> > do not think any Sanskrit scholar ( I am not one) would declare

> them

> > anything but sutras. I have sought opinion of the learned in that

> > language and their uniform opinion is that they are sutras.

> >

> > That is why I said let us agree to disagree.

> >

> > Chandrashekhar.

> >

> > Sreenadh wrote:

> > >

> > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji,

> > > It is not Parashara of Mahabharata (the father of Vyasa) who wrote

> > > Parasara Hora. But a Parasara who lived around BC 1400 wrote

> Parasara

> > > Sidhanta, Parasara Hora and Parasara Samhita, as the proof for the

> > > same is provided by an availabe sloka of Parasara Samhita.

> > > BPHS definitely mentions the names of Parasara and Mitreya, and

> > > since the book is as told by Parasara and that is why the name

> Brihat

> > > Parasara Hora Sastra is attributed to it.

> > > Coming to Jaimini sutra, the text does not even fulfill the prime

> > > condition for a Sutra text. As per the definition-

> > > " Alpaksharam Aasannigdtham Sutram Sutravido vidu "

> > > [A sutra should contain less number of characters and the meaning

> of

> > > the sutra should be crystal clear]

> > > Even though the sutras in Jaimini sutra contains less number of

> > > characters, they does not satisfy the second condition the meaning

> > > should be unambiguous and crystal clear.

> > > Look at any other sutra text - such as Brigu Sutra in Astrology,

> > > Sutras of Patanjali in grammar, Yoga Sutras of Patanjali, Chanakya

> > > Sutra etc - you will see the great difference between their

> approach

> > > and presentation and the mere 'Abbreviation effort' of Jaimini.

> > >

> > > Love,

> > > Sreenadh

> > >

> <%40>

> > > <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Dear Sreenadh,

> > > >

> > > > Carrying the logic further what proof is there that the

> Parashara who

> > > > was father of Vyasa wrote the BPHS? Nobody wrote books in those

> days

> > > > they were memorized and carried by word of mouth. Even BPHS

> does not

> > > > mention that being its name.

> > > >

> > > > I think there is a bit of difference between sutras and

> shlokas. I do

> > > > not think there is any evidence that suggests that it is

> > > presentation of

> > > > concepts of Parashara in abbreviated manner. Could you point to

> those

> > > > sutras that do this?

> > > >

> > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > >

> > > > Sreenadh wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji,

> > > > > I have another question - what proof is there to say that the

> book

> > > > > is written by sage Jaimini? The book does not even mention

> the auther,

> > > > > then what to say about his guru?

> > > > > The book 'Jaimini Sutra' is written by a student of some

> teacher

> > > > > (let us positively hope that it is Jaimini), and collects and

> presents

> > > > > the advice given by the teacher, as indicated by the first

> sutra of

> > > > > the text itself. One more thing - where in the book it is

> mentioned

> > > > > that the name of the book is 'Jaimini Sutra'?

> > > > > But the internal proof - the slokas, the terminology, concepts

> > > > > described etc - clearly tells us that it an effort to present

> the

> > > > > concepts presented by Parasara in an abriviated manner. This

> being the

> > > > > situation, I too would agree to disagree...

> > > > > P.S: I am uploading my thoughts on some of the intial slokas

> of

> > > > > Jaimini sutra, and the link is provided in the next post.

> > > > > Love,

> > > > > Sreenadh

> > > > >

> <%40>

> > > <%40>

> > > > > <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Dear Sreenadh,

> > > > > >

> > > > > > I could have agreed to the contention had Jaimini mentioned

> > > somewhere

> > > > > > about Parashara having been his Guru, as was the practice

> in ancient

> > > > > > sages. Even Parashara tells his having given the knowledge

> > > received by

> > > > > > Shaunaka who got it through Garga who in turn received it

> through

> > > > > > Narada. But then I am an obstinate old person who was

> taught to base

> > > > > his

> > > > > > judgement of the ancient astrological texts, on both

> Pramana and

> > > tarka.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > So let us agree to disagree on this.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Regards,

> > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Sreenadh wrote:

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Dear Chandrasekhar ji,

> > > > > > > 1)Even though Jaimini sutra provides a special set of

> > > principles as

> > > > > > > compared to the available (printed) BPHS, there are many

> > > slokas that

> > > > > > > supports the same, as available from commentaries of

> Jaimini sutra

> > > > > > > and virdha karikas.

> > > > > > > There are many slokas of Parasara available, about many

> such

> > > > > > > concepts that are not present in the printed BPHS, but

> present in

> > > > > > > various commentaries of Jaimini sutra.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > 2) It is not the simple study of Argala concept alone that

> > > helps us

> > > > > > > in reaching the conclusion that " Jaimini sutra is a guide

> and

> > > > > > > extension of BPHS, that tries to teach Parasara's

> concepts " , but

> > > > > > > rather-

> > > > > > > * the study of the whole book and its approach

> > > > > > > * comparison of concepts and words used within it

> > > > > > > * the methodology of presentation followed in the book

> > > > > > > and many more.

> > > > > > > Love,

> > > > > > > Sreenadh

> > > > > > >

> <%40>

> > > <%40>

> > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> > > > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Dear Sreenadh,

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > But if the two are giving different sets of principles,

> as

> > > > > > > indicated by

> > > > > > > > you in another mail, then how do you verify the

> veracity of the

> > > > > > > sutras.

> > > > > > > > Anyway, I still do not find enough evidence to think

> that

> > > Parashara

> > > > > > > is

> > > > > > > > Anargala and Jaimini is Argala. Only Lord Shiva is

> Anargala

> > > and we

> > > > > > > do

> > > > > > > > not have access to him.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Sreenadh wrote:

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji,

> > > > > > > > > I think the interpretation of Jaimini sutras become

> far more

> > > > > > > easier

> > > > > > > > > if we find the bolt and the key.

> > > > > > > > > * The Bolt is: Jaimini sutra is not an independent

> text,

> > > it is a

> > > > > > > > > guide to BPHS concepts, extending them a bit.

> > > > > > > > > * The Key is: Refer to BPHS first always for clarity,

> and

> > > then try

> > > > > > > > > unlocking Jaimini sutra with the same.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > P.S: May be BPHS is Anargala and Jaimini sutra is the

> > > Argala. )

> > > > > > > > > Love,

> > > > > > > > > Sreenadh

> > > > > > > > >

> <%40>

> > > <%40>

> > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > <%40>,

> Chandrashekhar

> > > > > > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > If you draw a south indian style chart you will find

> > > that the

> > > > > > > signs

> > > > > > > > > do

> > > > > > > > > > aspect the ones in front of them. Parshva means

> side of

> > > the body

> > > > > > > > > and the

> > > > > > > > > > second sutra tells that they also aspect the signs

> to their

> > > > > > > side.

> > > > > > > > > The

> > > > > > > > > > interpretation of sutras is always difficult.

> However

> > > there are

> > > > > > > > > Vriddha

> > > > > > > > > > Karikas that make the situation quite crystal clear.

> > > Parashara

> > > > > > > also

> > > > > > > > > uses

> > > > > > > > > > the same terminology but goes on th explain that the

> > > adjacent

> > > > > > > rasis

> > > > > > > > > are

> > > > > > > > > > not aspected upon and the explanation of the rasi

> aspect is

> > > > > > > > > clarified

> > > > > > > > > > beyond doubt by him. Krishnanand Saraswati, in his

> > > commentary on

> > > > > > > > > Jaimini

> > > > > > > > > > sutras also express the same opinion. The grahas

> > > occupying the

> > > > > > > > > rasis

> > > > > > > > > > also have identical aspects as those of the rasis.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Take care,

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Dear shri Sreenadh & Respected members

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > It is really informative to read your recent

> > > historical write

> > > > > > > up's

> > > > > > > > > > > regarding Astrology(Arsha paramparya and

> > > > > > > Parashara/Jaimini).Thank

> > > > > > > > > > > you very much.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > In similar lines to Argala,i have a fundamental

> doubt

> > > > > > > regarding

> > > > > > > > > > > Rashi drishtis.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Let me quote from the translation done by Shri

> Surya

> > > Narain

> > > > > > > Rao.

> > > > > > > > > > > SU.2.-Abhipasyanti rikshani. The zodiacal signs

> aspect

> > > each

> > > > > > > other

> > > > > > > > > > > (in their front). SU. 3.-Parswabhe cha.

> Excepting.the next

> > > > > > > > > zodiacal

> > > > > > > > > > > signs to them. SU. 4.- ?ihann ishthascha tadvat.

> Those

> > > planets

> > > > > > > > > which

> > > > > > > > > > > occupy such signs will also aspect the planets

> found

> > > in such

> > > > > > > > > houses.

> > > > > > > > > > > Respected translator makes the following HONEST

> > > statement -

> > > > > > > ''The

> > > > > > > > > > > zodiacal signs aspect each other which are in

> their

> > > FRONT. I

> > > > > > > DO

> > > > > > > > > NOT

> > > > > > > > > > > exactly understand what is meant by the word

> > > FRONT''.Then he

> > > > > > > says

> > > > > > > > > > > commentators observe - Mesha has

> Vrishchika,Mithuna has

> > > > > > > > > > > Thula .....Meena has Mithuna as their front signs.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Pls see my next mail for personal views.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Regds

> > > > > > > > > > > Pradeep

> > > > > > > > > > >

> <%40>

> > > <%40>

> > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > <%

> 40>, " Sreenadh "

> > > <sreesog@>

> > > > > > > > > wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > Dear All,

> > > > > > > > > > > > What is Argala? What is the popular opinion

> about

> > > the same?

> > > > > > > In

> > > > > > > > > > > what

> > > > > > > > > > > > situations it is applicable? Are there any

> > > contradictions

> > > > > > > > > between

> > > > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > definition of Argala by Parasara and Jaimini?

> What

> > > is your

> > > > > > > > > > > opinion?

> > > > > > > > > > > > Please clarify.

> > > > > > > > > > > > Regards,

> > > > > > > > > > > > Sreenadh

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > -----------------

> --------

> > > > > > > > > ------

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.8.9/832 -

> > > Release Date:

> > > > > > > > > 6/4/2007 6:43 PM

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been

> removed]

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > ---------------------

> ----

> > > > > > > ------

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.8.9/832 -

> Release Date:

> > > > > > > 6/4/2007 6:43 PM

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

June 11, 2007

Dear Sreenadh,

I read the write up. I do not think the sutra that you interpreted says

what is claimed. Could you tell with what logic the sutra is interpreted

to have said that 11, 9 and 6 block argalas? Could you elaborate.

Neither Dara, Bhagya or Shoola mean 11. I would like your logic in

katapayaadi deciphering process used.

Chandrashekhar.

Sreenadh wrote:

>

> Dear Chandrashekhar ji,

> ==>

> > I do not find the Jaimini sutra telling about argala of 4th house

> > being blocked by 11th house virodh agrala therein. Can you send

> > those sutras with your interpretation?

> <==

>

> Please read the commentary on the sloka " Dara Bhagya Soolastha

> Argala Nidhyatu " in the above pdf file. (This is the first sloka in

> the Argala discussion section) It is discussed there in detail.

> The above sloka speaks about Argala caused by 4-2-11 houses, getting

> obstructed Virodhargala formed in 11-9-6 houses respectively. Read

> that write up for details.

> Copy pasting it here again would be mere repetition.

> Love,

> Sreenadh

>

> <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> <chandrashekhar46 wrote:

> >

> > Dear Sreenadh,

> >

> > I have read the file and have sent you an answer. I do not find any

> > reason to change my opinion after reading the file as what is

> stated is

> > more of a conjecture than logical deduction.

> >

> > I do not find the Jaimini sutra telling about argala of 4th house

> being

> > blocked by 11th house virodh agrala therein. Can you send those

> sutras

> > with your interpretation?

> >

> > So let us agree to disagree.

> >

> > regards,

> > Chandrashekhar.

> >

> > Sreenadh wrote:

> > >

> > > Dea Chandrashekhar ji,

> > > I forgot to answer one of your questions-

> > > ==>

> > > > I do not think there is any evidence that suggests that it is

> > > > presentation of concepts of Parashara in abbreviated manner.

> > > > Could you point to those sutras that do this?

> > > <==

> > > Almost every sutra of the text Jaimini sutra is proof of the same.

> > > Please read through the commentary for some of the initial slokas

> of

> > > Jaimini sutra I wrote. The link for the pdf file is-

> > > http://rapidshare.com36169108/Jaimini_Sutra_-

> <http://rapidshare.com36169108/Jaimini_Sutra_->

> _Beginning.pdf

> > > <http://rapidshare.com36169108/Jaimini_Sutra_-

> <http://rapidshare.com36169108/Jaimini_Sutra_->

> _Beginning.pdf>

> > >

> > > P.S. Note that I have fullfilled my word about " pdf file about the

> > > same " given earlier.

> > > Love,

> > > Sreenadh

> > >

> <%40>

> > > <%40>, " Sreenadh " <sreesog@>

> wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji,

> > > > It is not Parashara of Mahabharata (the father of Vyasa) who

> wrote

> > > > Parasara Hora. But a Parasara who lived around BC 1400 wrote

> Parasara

> > > > Sidhanta, Parasara Hora and Parasara Samhita, as the proof for

> the

> > > > same is provided by an availabe sloka of Parasara Samhita.

> > > > BPHS definitely mentions the names of Parasara and Mitreya, and

> > > > since the book is as told by Parasara and that is why the name

> Brihat

> > > > Parasara Hora Sastra is attributed to it.

> > > > Coming to Jaimini sutra, the text does not even fulfill the

> prime

> > > > condition for a Sutra text. As per the definition-

> > > > " Alpaksharam Aasannigdtham Sutram Sutravido vidu "

> > > > [A sutra should contain less number of characters and the

> meaning of

> > > > the sutra should be crystal clear]

> > > > Even though the sutras in Jaimini sutra contains less number of

> > > > characters, they does not satisfy the second condition the

> meaning

> > > > should be unambiguous and crystal clear.

> > > > Look at any other sutra text - such as Brigu Sutra in Astrology,

> > > > Sutras of Patanjali in grammar, Yoga Sutras of Patanjali,

> Chanakya

> > > > Sutra etc - you will see the great difference between their

> approach

> > > > and presentation and the mere 'Abbreviation effort' of Jaimini.

> > > >

> > > > Love,

> > > > Sreenadh

> > > >

> <%40>

> > > <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > > Dear Sreenadh,

> > > > >

> > > > > Carrying the logic further what proof is there that the

> Parashara who

> > > > > was father of Vyasa wrote the BPHS? Nobody wrote books in

> those days

> > > > > they were memorized and carried by word of mouth. Even BPHS

> does not

> > > > > mention that being its name.

> > > > >

> > > > > I think there is a bit of difference between sutras and

> shlokas. I do

> > > > > not think there is any evidence that suggests that it is

> > > > presentation of

> > > > > concepts of Parashara in abbreviated manner. Could you point

> to those

> > > > > sutras that do this?

> > > > >

> > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > >

> > > > > Sreenadh wrote:

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji,

> > > > > > I have another question - what proof is there to say that

> the book

> > > > > > is written by sage Jaimini? The book does not even mention

> the

> > > auther,

> > > > > > then what to say about his guru?

> > > > > > The book 'Jaimini Sutra' is written by a student of some

> teacher

> > > > > > (let us positively hope that it is Jaimini), and collects

> and

> > > presents

> > > > > > the advice given by the teacher, as indicated by the first

> sutra of

> > > > > > the text itself. One more thing - where in the book it is

> mentioned

> > > > > > that the name of the book is 'Jaimini Sutra'?

> > > > > > But the internal proof - the slokas, the terminology,

> concepts

> > > > > > described etc - clearly tells us that it an effort to

> present the

> > > > > > concepts presented by Parasara in an abriviated manner. This

> > > being the

> > > > > > situation, I too would agree to disagree...

> > > > > > P.S: I am uploading my thoughts on some of the intial

> slokas of

> > > > > > Jaimini sutra, and the link is provided in the next post.

> > > > > > Love,

> > > > > > Sreenadh

> > > > > >

> <%40>

> > > <%40>

> > > > > > <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> > > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Dear Sreenadh,

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > I could have agreed to the contention had Jaimini

> mentioned

> > > > somewhere

> > > > > > > about Parashara having been his Guru, as was the practice

> in

> > > ancient

> > > > > > > sages. Even Parashara tells his having given the knowledge

> > > > received by

> > > > > > > Shaunaka who got it through Garga who in turn received it

> through

> > > > > > > Narada. But then I am an obstinate old person who was

> taught

> > > to base

> > > > > > his

> > > > > > > judgement of the ancient astrological texts, on both

> Pramana and

> > > > tarka.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > So let us agree to disagree on this.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Regards,

> > > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Sreenadh wrote:

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Dear Chandrasekhar ji,

> > > > > > > > 1)Even though Jaimini sutra provides a special set of

> > > > principles as

> > > > > > > > compared to the available (printed) BPHS, there are many

> > > > slokas that

> > > > > > > > supports the same, as available from commentaries of

> Jaimini

> > > sutra

> > > > > > > > and virdha karikas.

> > > > > > > > There are many slokas of Parasara available, about many

> such

> > > > > > > > concepts that are not present in the printed BPHS, but

> > > present in

> > > > > > > > various commentaries of Jaimini sutra.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > 2) It is not the simple study of Argala concept alone

> that

> > > > helps us

> > > > > > > > in reaching the conclusion that " Jaimini sutra is a

> guide and

> > > > > > > > extension of BPHS, that tries to teach Parasara's

> concepts " , but

> > > > > > > > rather-

> > > > > > > > * the study of the whole book and its approach

> > > > > > > > * comparison of concepts and words used within it

> > > > > > > > * the methodology of presentation followed in the book

> > > > > > > > and many more.

> > > > > > > > Love,

> > > > > > > > Sreenadh

> > > > > > > >

> <%40>

> > > <%40>

> > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> > > > > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > > > > > >

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

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > But if the two are giving different sets of

> principles, as

> > > > > > > > indicated by

> > > > > > > > > you in another mail, then how do you verify the

> veracity

> > > of the

> > > > > > > > sutras.

> > > > > > > > > Anyway, I still do not find enough evidence to think

> that

> > > > Parashara

> > > > > > > > is

> > > > > > > > > Anargala and Jaimini is Argala. Only Lord Shiva is

> Anargala

> > > > and we

> > > > > > > > do

> > > > > > > > > not have access to him.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Sreenadh wrote:

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji,

> > > > > > > > > > I think the interpretation of Jaimini sutras become

> far more

> > > > > > > > easier

> > > > > > > > > > if we find the bolt and the key.

> > > > > > > > > > * The Bolt is: Jaimini sutra is not an independent

> text,

> > > > it is a

> > > > > > > > > > guide to BPHS concepts, extending them a bit.

> > > > > > > > > > * The Key is: Refer to BPHS first always for

> clarity, and

> > > > then try

> > > > > > > > > > unlocking Jaimini sutra with the same.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > P.S: May be BPHS is Anargala and Jaimini sutra is

> the

> > > > Argala. )

> > > > > > > > > > Love,

> > > > > > > > > > Sreenadh

> > > > > > > > > >

> <%40>

> > > <%40>

> > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > <%40>,

> Chandrashekhar

> > > > > > > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > If you draw a south indian style chart you will

> find

> > > > that the

> > > > > > > > signs

> > > > > > > > > > do

> > > > > > > > > > > aspect the ones in front of them. Parshva means

> side of

> > > > the body

> > > > > > > > > > and the

> > > > > > > > > > > second sutra tells that they also aspect the

> signs to

> > > their

> > > > > > > > side.

> > > > > > > > > > The

> > > > > > > > > > > interpretation of sutras is always difficult.

> However

> > > > there are

> > > > > > > > > > Vriddha

> > > > > > > > > > > Karikas that make the situation quite crystal

> clear.

> > > > Parashara

> > > > > > > > also

> > > > > > > > > > uses

> > > > > > > > > > > the same terminology but goes on th explain that

> the

> > > > adjacent

> > > > > > > > rasis

> > > > > > > > > > are

> > > > > > > > > > > not aspected upon and the explanation of the rasi

> > > aspect is

> > > > > > > > > > clarified

> > > > > > > > > > > beyond doubt by him. Krishnanand Saraswati, in his

> > > > commentary on

> > > > > > > > > > Jaimini

> > > > > > > > > > > sutras also express the same opinion. The grahas

> > > > occupying the

> > > > > > > > > > rasis

> > > > > > > > > > > also have identical aspects as those of the rasis.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Take care,

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > Dear shri Sreenadh & Respected members

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > It is really informative to read your recent

> > > > historical write

> > > > > > > > up's

> > > > > > > > > > > > regarding Astrology(Arsha paramparya and

> > > > > > > > Parashara/Jaimini).Thank

> > > > > > > > > > > > you very much.

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > In similar lines to Argala,i have a fundamental

> doubt

> > > > > > > > regarding

> > > > > > > > > > > > Rashi drishtis.

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > Let me quote from the translation done by Shri

> Surya

> > > > Narain

> > > > > > > > Rao.

> > > > > > > > > > > > SU.2.-Abhipasyanti rikshani. The zodiacal signs

> aspect

> > > > each

> > > > > > > > other

> > > > > > > > > > > > (in their front). SU. 3.-Parswabhe cha.

> > > Excepting.the next

> > > > > > > > > > zodiacal

> > > > > > > > > > > > signs to them. SU. 4.- ?ihann ishthascha

> tadvat. Those

> > > > planets

> > > > > > > > > > which

> > > > > > > > > > > > occupy such signs will also aspect the planets

> found

> > > > in such

> > > > > > > > > > houses.

> > > > > > > > > > > > Respected translator makes the following HONEST

> > > > statement -

> > > > > > > > ''The

> > > > > > > > > > > > zodiacal signs aspect each other which are in

> their

> > > > FRONT. I

> > > > > > > > DO

> > > > > > > > > > NOT

> > > > > > > > > > > > exactly understand what is meant by the word

> > > > FRONT''.Then he

> > > > > > > > says

> > > > > > > > > > > > commentators observe - Mesha has

> Vrishchika,Mithuna has

> > > > > > > > > > > > Thula .....Meena has Mithuna as their front

> signs.

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > Pls see my next mail for personal views.

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > Regds

> > > > > > > > > > > > Pradeep

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> <%40>

> > > <%40>

> > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > > <%

> 40>, " Sreenadh "

> > > > <sreesog@>

> > > > > > > > > > wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear All,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > What is Argala? What is the popular opinion

> about

> > > > the same?

> > > > > > > > In

> > > > > > > > > > > > what

> > > > > > > > > > > > > situations it is applicable? Are there any

> > > > contradictions

> > > > > > > > > > between

> > > > > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > definition of Argala by Parasara and Jaimini?

> What

> > > > is your

> > > > > > > > > > > > opinion?

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Please clarify.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Regards,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Sreenadh

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > -------------------------

> > > > > > > > > > ------

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.8.9/832 -

> > > > Release Date:

> > > > > > > > > > 6/4/2007 6:43 PM

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been

> removed]

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > -------------------

> ------

> > > > > > > > ------

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.8.9/832 -

> Release

> > > Date:

> > > > > > > > 6/4/2007 6:43 PM

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

What is Argala? (Parasara/Jaimini System) - Rashi Drishti Doubt - 1

Recommended Posts

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Join the conversation

Support the Ashram

Join Groups