Graha Drishti - Context of Varga Sambandhas - 1

[Guest guest]

Dear Respected members

 

I would like to draw your attention to a debate between me and Shri

Narasimha Rao 3.5 years back in vedic astrology list -

 

(Quote Begins)''Regarding aspects in divisional charts, there is an

explicit quote from Parasara that establishes them. Please see 39-13

in BPHS (this number is from Santhanam version. If you have GCSharma

version, the number will be different. Please check the 13th verse

in the chapter on raja yogas).

 

lagna shadvargake chaivameka kheta yutekshite |

raaja yogo bhavatyeva nirvisankam dwijottama || 39-13

 

This means: " O excellent of Brahmins, if the same PLANET is

occupying or ASPECTING lagna in the SIX divisional charts belonging

to the shadvarga group, it undoubtedly gives a raja yoga " . The six

charts in shadvarga group are rasi (D-1), hora (D-2), drekkana (D-

3), navamsa (D-9),dwadasamsa (D-12) and thrimsamsa (D-30).

 

This clearly means that planets do have aspects in divisional charts

also.Atleast rasi drishti (sign aspect) should be valid in

divisional charts.In fact, the verse after the above verse talks

about the magnitudes of the aspects for seeing the magnitude of yoga

and hence it implies that graha drishti (planetary aspect) is being

referred to.

 

Rasi drishti of signs and planets does not have magnitudes, only

graha drishti of planets does.''(Quote Ends).

 

If you follow the discussion one can easily find the contradiction -

Shri Narasimha Rao rightly identifies that Griha drishti is what

sage had in mind as the following shloka talks about magnitudes of

aspect.But soon he says atleast ''Rashi drishti'' is valid showing a

contradiction.

 

It is Graha drishti.

 

Then where is the problem - pls see the next mail

 

Regds

Pradeep

[Guest guest]

Dear Pradeep,

 

I think what is, perhaps, not understood in aspects in divisional charts

is that they are referred to only at certain specific places and may

have to do more with the relation between the lord of that part of the

division with another one in the same divisional chart and the reference

to drishti may be an easier way of telling this.

 

Personally I think that the difference between the Graha and Rasi

drishti is of dynamism. The former relation is dynamic whereas the later

is static, except when Grahas also occupy the aspecting rasi and that to

a very limited extent dictated by the static relation between the rasis.

 

The question that naturally arises out of this is whether the rasi

drishti are irrelevant or not. Personally I think that when the karmas

of his past are concerned the rasi drishti may be more relevant than the

graha drishti. That is what ever is likely to remain static can be

better seen through rasi drishti in higher levels of D-charts, whereas

in the rasi chart it is the Graha drishti that has precedence.

 

Of course this is my personal opinion and those more knowledgeable than

me may hold a different view on the subject.

 

Take care,

Chandrashekhar.

 

 

vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

>

> Dear Respected members

>

> I would like to draw your attention to a debate between me and Shri

> Narasimha Rao 3.5 years back in vedic astrology list -

>

> (Quote Begins)''Regarding aspects in divisional charts, there is an

> explicit quote from Parasara that establishes them. Please see 39-13

> in BPHS (this number is from Santhanam version. If you have GCSharma

> version, the number will be different. Please check the 13th verse

> in the chapter on raja yogas).

>

> lagna shadvargake chaivameka kheta yutekshite |

> raaja yogo bhavatyeva nirvisankam dwijottama || 39-13

>

> This means: " O excellent of Brahmins, if the same PLANET is

> occupying or ASPECTING lagna in the SIX divisional charts belonging

> to the shadvarga group, it undoubtedly gives a raja yoga " . The six

> charts in shadvarga group are rasi (D-1), hora (D-2), drekkana (D-

> 3), navamsa (D-9),dwadasamsa (D-12) and thrimsamsa (D-30).

>

> This clearly means that planets do have aspects in divisional charts

> also.Atleast rasi drishti (sign aspect) should be valid in

> divisional charts.In fact, the verse after the above verse talks

> about the magnitudes of the aspects for seeing the magnitude of yoga

> and hence it implies that graha drishti (planetary aspect) is being

> referred to.

>

> Rasi drishti of signs and planets does not have magnitudes, only

> graha drishti of planets does.''(Quote Ends).

>

> If you follow the discussion one can easily find the contradiction -

> Shri Narasimha Rao rightly identifies that Griha drishti is what

> sage had in mind as the following shloka talks about magnitudes of

> aspect.But soon he says atleast ''Rashi drishti'' is valid showing a

> contradiction.

>

> It is Graha drishti.

>

> Then where is the problem - pls see the next mail

>

> Regds

> Pradeep

>

>

> ------

>

>

>

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

PM

>

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Dear Pradeep ji & Chandrasekhar ji,

Thanks. That was 2 good mails.

Love,

Sreenadh

, Chandrashekhar

<chandrashekhar46 wrote:

>

> Dear Pradeep,

>

> I think what is, perhaps, not understood in aspects in divisional

charts

> is that they are referred to only at certain specific places and

may

> have to do more with the relation between the lord of that part of

the

> division with another one in the same divisional chart and the

reference

> to drishti may be an easier way of telling this.

>

> Personally I think that the difference between the Graha and Rasi

> drishti is of dynamism. The former relation is dynamic whereas the

later

> is static, except when Grahas also occupy the aspecting rasi and

that to

> a very limited extent dictated by the static relation between the

rasis.

>

> The question that naturally arises out of this is whether the rasi

> drishti are irrelevant or not. Personally I think that when the

karmas

> of his past are concerned the rasi drishti may be more relevant

than the

> graha drishti. That is what ever is likely to remain static can be

> better seen through rasi drishti in higher levels of D-charts,

whereas

> in the rasi chart it is the Graha drishti that has precedence.

>

> Of course this is my personal opinion and those more knowledgeable

than

> me may hold a different view on the subject.

>

> Take care,

> Chandrashekhar.

>

>

> vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> >

> > Dear Respected members

> >

> > I would like to draw your attention to a debate between me and

Shri

> > Narasimha Rao 3.5 years back in vedic astrology list -

> >

> > (Quote Begins)''Regarding aspects in divisional charts, there is

an

> > explicit quote from Parasara that establishes them. Please see 39-

13

> > in BPHS (this number is from Santhanam version. If you have

GCSharma

> > version, the number will be different. Please check the 13th verse

> > in the chapter on raja yogas).

> >

> > lagna shadvargake chaivameka kheta yutekshite |

> > raaja yogo bhavatyeva nirvisankam dwijottama || 39-13

> >

> > This means: " O excellent of Brahmins, if the same PLANET is

> > occupying or ASPECTING lagna in the SIX divisional charts

belonging

> > to the shadvarga group, it undoubtedly gives a raja yoga " . The six

> > charts in shadvarga group are rasi (D-1), hora (D-2), drekkana (D-

> > 3), navamsa (D-9),dwadasamsa (D-12) and thrimsamsa (D-30).

> >

> > This clearly means that planets do have aspects in divisional

charts

> > also.Atleast rasi drishti (sign aspect) should be valid in

> > divisional charts.In fact, the verse after the above verse talks

> > about the magnitudes of the aspects for seeing the magnitude of

yoga

> > and hence it implies that graha drishti (planetary aspect) is

being

> > referred to.

> >

> > Rasi drishti of signs and planets does not have magnitudes, only

> > graha drishti of planets does.''(Quote Ends).

> >

> > If you follow the discussion one can easily find the

contradiction -

> > Shri Narasimha Rao rightly identifies that Griha drishti is what

> > sage had in mind as the following shloka talks about magnitudes of

> > aspect.But soon he says atleast ''Rashi drishti'' is valid

showing a

> > contradiction.

> >

> > It is Graha drishti.

> >

> > Then where is the problem - pls see the next mail

> >

> > Regds

> > Pradeep

> >

> >

> >

------

> >

> >

> >

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

6/4/2007 6:43 PM

> >

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Dear Sreenadh,

 

Thank you for your kind words,

 

Chandrashekhar.

 

Sreenadh wrote:

>

> Dear Pradeep ji & Chandrasekhar ji,

> Thanks. That was 2 good mails.

> Love,

> Sreenadh

>

> <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> <chandrashekhar46 wrote:

> >

> > Dear Pradeep,

> >

> > I think what is, perhaps, not understood in aspects in divisional

> charts

> > is that they are referred to only at certain specific places and

> may

> > have to do more with the relation between the lord of that part of

> the

> > division with another one in the same divisional chart and the

> reference

> > to drishti may be an easier way of telling this.

> >

> > Personally I think that the difference between the Graha and Rasi

> > drishti is of dynamism. The former relation is dynamic whereas the

> later

> > is static, except when Grahas also occupy the aspecting rasi and

> that to

> > a very limited extent dictated by the static relation between the

> rasis.

> >

> > The question that naturally arises out of this is whether the rasi

> > drishti are irrelevant or not. Personally I think that when the

> karmas

> > of his past are concerned the rasi drishti may be more relevant

> than the

> > graha drishti. That is what ever is likely to remain static can be

> > better seen through rasi drishti in higher levels of D-charts,

> whereas

> > in the rasi chart it is the Graha drishti that has precedence.

> >

> > Of course this is my personal opinion and those more knowledgeable

> than

> > me may hold a different view on the subject.

> >

> > Take care,

> > Chandrashekhar.

> >

> >

> > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > >

> > > Dear Respected members

> > >

> > > I would like to draw your attention to a debate between me and

> Shri

> > > Narasimha Rao 3.5 years back in vedic astrology list -

> > >

> > > (Quote Begins)''Regarding aspects in divisional charts, there is

> an

> > > explicit quote from Parasara that establishes them. Please see 39-

> 13

> > > in BPHS (this number is from Santhanam version. If you have

> GCSharma

> > > version, the number will be different. Please check the 13th verse

> > > in the chapter on raja yogas).

> > >

> > > lagna shadvargake chaivameka kheta yutekshite |

> > > raaja yogo bhavatyeva nirvisankam dwijottama || 39-13

> > >

> > > This means: " O excellent of Brahmins, if the same PLANET is

> > > occupying or ASPECTING lagna in the SIX divisional charts

> belonging

> > > to the shadvarga group, it undoubtedly gives a raja yoga " . The six

> > > charts in shadvarga group are rasi (D-1), hora (D-2), drekkana (D-

> > > 3), navamsa (D-9),dwadasamsa (D-12) and thrimsamsa (D-30).

> > >

> > > This clearly means that planets do have aspects in divisional

> charts

> > > also.Atleast rasi drishti (sign aspect) should be valid in

> > > divisional charts.In fact, the verse after the above verse talks

> > > about the magnitudes of the aspects for seeing the magnitude of

> yoga

> > > and hence it implies that graha drishti (planetary aspect) is

> being

> > > referred to.

> > >

> > > Rasi drishti of signs and planets does not have magnitudes, only

> > > graha drishti of planets does.''(Quote Ends).

> > >

> > > If you follow the discussion one can easily find the

> contradiction -

> > > Shri Narasimha Rao rightly identifies that Griha drishti is what

> > > sage had in mind as the following shloka talks about magnitudes of

> > > aspect.But soon he says atleast ''Rashi drishti'' is valid

> showing a

> > > contradiction.

> > >

> > > It is Graha drishti.

> > >

> > > Then where is the problem - pls see the next mail

> > >

> > > Regds

> > > Pradeep

> > >

> > >

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

> ------

> > >

> > >

> > >

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

> 6/4/2007 6:43 PM

> > >

> >

> >

> >

[Guest guest]

Dear Chandrashekhar ji

 

As you are aware,i have understood vargas as relations happening

within Rashi chakra.I feel you too have similar understanding in

essence,except for the fact that,you are considering all the

planetary amshas as a whole ,with Lagnamsha rashi as reference.I also

understand that you agree that planets cannot start an aspect from

the rashis on to which they have attained amshas.Aspects can only

emanate from the rashi on which they are placed and not from the

rashis on to which have amsha sambandha.I feel you agree with this.

 

I feel if,karakamsha rashi can be treated as a reference in rashi

chakra ,then navamsha rashi can also be treated.But then i have a

preference to use planetary PLACEMENTS from those as compared to

planetary amshas.For example in the reverse case,there are ample

shlokas,which talk about malefic planets having navamsha in the 7th

house in rashi chakra.

 

Those who are better learned may correct.

 

Repect

Pradeep

 

 

 

, Chandrashekhar

<chandrashekhar46 wrote:

>

> Dear Pradeep,

>

> I think what is, perhaps, not understood in aspects in divisional

charts

> is that they are referred to only at certain specific places and

may

> have to do more with the relation between the lord of that part of

the

> division with another one in the same divisional chart and the

reference

> to drishti may be an easier way of telling this.

>

> Personally I think that the difference between the Graha and Rasi

> drishti is of dynamism. The former relation is dynamic whereas the

later

> is static, except when Grahas also occupy the aspecting rasi and

that to

> a very limited extent dictated by the static relation between the

rasis.

>

> The question that naturally arises out of this is whether the rasi

> drishti are irrelevant or not. Personally I think that when the

karmas

> of his past are concerned the rasi drishti may be more relevant

than the

> graha drishti. That is what ever is likely to remain static can be

> better seen through rasi drishti in higher levels of D-charts,

whereas

> in the rasi chart it is the Graha drishti that has precedence.

>

> Of course this is my personal opinion and those more knowledgeable

than

> me may hold a different view on the subject.

>

> Take care,

> Chandrashekhar.

>

>

> vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> >

> > Dear Respected members

> >

> > I would like to draw your attention to a debate between me and

Shri

> > Narasimha Rao 3.5 years back in vedic astrology list -

> >

> > (Quote Begins)''Regarding aspects in divisional charts, there is

an

> > explicit quote from Parasara that establishes them. Please see 39-

13

> > in BPHS (this number is from Santhanam version. If you have

GCSharma

> > version, the number will be different. Please check the 13th verse

> > in the chapter on raja yogas).

> >

> > lagna shadvargake chaivameka kheta yutekshite |

> > raaja yogo bhavatyeva nirvisankam dwijottama || 39-13

> >

> > This means: " O excellent of Brahmins, if the same PLANET is

> > occupying or ASPECTING lagna in the SIX divisional charts

belonging

> > to the shadvarga group, it undoubtedly gives a raja yoga " . The six

> > charts in shadvarga group are rasi (D-1), hora (D-2), drekkana (D-

> > 3), navamsa (D-9),dwadasamsa (D-12) and thrimsamsa (D-30).

> >

> > This clearly means that planets do have aspects in divisional

charts

> > also.Atleast rasi drishti (sign aspect) should be valid in

> > divisional charts.In fact, the verse after the above verse talks

> > about the magnitudes of the aspects for seeing the magnitude of

yoga

> > and hence it implies that graha drishti (planetary aspect) is

being

> > referred to.

> >

> > Rasi drishti of signs and planets does not have magnitudes, only

> > graha drishti of planets does.''(Quote Ends).

> >

> > If you follow the discussion one can easily find the

contradiction -

> > Shri Narasimha Rao rightly identifies that Griha drishti is what

> > sage had in mind as the following shloka talks about magnitudes of

> > aspect.But soon he says atleast ''Rashi drishti'' is valid

showing a

> > contradiction.

> >

> > It is Graha drishti.

> >

> > Then where is the problem - pls see the next mail

> >

> > Regds

> > Pradeep

> >

> >

> >

------

> >

> >

> >

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

6/4/2007 6:43 PM

> >

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Dear Pradeep,

 

You know my views fully. I do not to drishtis especially graha

drishti in D-charts, unless specifically mentioned by sages for a

particular yoga. At the same time one has to understand that if the

sages say that in a particular yoga, drishti in d-chart is to be seen it

implies that they are trying to give a simpler view of looking at the

sambandha between grahas in the said D-chart instead of giving drishti

in multiples of complex amshas. For example if the sages want to say

that Jupiter needs to be away from another graha in multiples of 5X3

degrees 20minutes in navamsha for a particular result, they could say

that Jupiter must aspect that graha by the 5th house aspect. That again

is why the sages talk about a graha in debility or exaltation its

reverse position in D-Chart. This is an easier way of telling the

precise degrees of the rasi of debility where the graha will behave as

if in exaltation.

 

Now as we go to rasi drishti, being static in nature, they may be better

used where one has to divine some non changeable condition like say some

inherited affliction from patrilineal line from D-45. This condition is

not subject to change due to transit planets or dashas and is a static

condition. This is what I wanted to convey. Am I sufficiently clear now?

 

Take care,

Chandrashekhar.

 

vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

>

> Dear Chandrashekhar ji

>

> As you are aware,i have understood vargas as relations happening

> within Rashi chakra.I feel you too have similar understanding in

> essence,except for the fact that,you are considering all the

> planetary amshas as a whole ,with Lagnamsha rashi as reference.I also

> understand that you agree that planets cannot start an aspect from

> the rashis on to which they have attained amshas.Aspects can only

> emanate from the rashi on which they are placed and not from the

> rashis on to which have amsha sambandha.I feel you agree with this.

>

> I feel if,karakamsha rashi can be treated as a reference in rashi

> chakra ,then navamsha rashi can also be treated.But then i have a

> preference to use planetary PLACEMENTS from those as compared to

> planetary amshas.For example in the reverse case,there are ample

> shlokas,which talk about malefic planets having navamsha in the 7th

> house in rashi chakra.

>

> Those who are better learned may correct.

>

> Repect

> Pradeep

>

>

> <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> <chandrashekhar46 wrote:

> >

> > Dear Pradeep,

> >

> > I think what is, perhaps, not understood in aspects in divisional

> charts

> > is that they are referred to only at certain specific places and

> may

> > have to do more with the relation between the lord of that part of

> the

> > division with another one in the same divisional chart and the

> reference

> > to drishti may be an easier way of telling this.

> >

> > Personally I think that the difference between the Graha and Rasi

> > drishti is of dynamism. The former relation is dynamic whereas the

> later

> > is static, except when Grahas also occupy the aspecting rasi and

> that to

> > a very limited extent dictated by the static relation between the

> rasis.

> >

> > The question that naturally arises out of this is whether the rasi

> > drishti are irrelevant or not. Personally I think that when the

> karmas

> > of his past are concerned the rasi drishti may be more relevant

> than the

> > graha drishti. That is what ever is likely to remain static can be

> > better seen through rasi drishti in higher levels of D-charts,

> whereas

> > in the rasi chart it is the Graha drishti that has precedence.

> >

> > Of course this is my personal opinion and those more knowledgeable

> than

> > me may hold a different view on the subject.

> >

> > Take care,

> > Chandrashekhar.

> >

> >

> > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > >

> > > Dear Respected members

> > >

> > > I would like to draw your attention to a debate between me and

> Shri

> > > Narasimha Rao 3.5 years back in vedic astrology list -

> > >

> > > (Quote Begins)''Regarding aspects in divisional charts, there is

> an

> > > explicit quote from Parasara that establishes them. Please see 39-

> 13

> > > in BPHS (this number is from Santhanam version. If you have

> GCSharma

> > > version, the number will be different. Please check the 13th verse

> > > in the chapter on raja yogas).

> > >

> > > lagna shadvargake chaivameka kheta yutekshite |

> > > raaja yogo bhavatyeva nirvisankam dwijottama || 39-13

> > >

> > > This means: " O excellent of Brahmins, if the same PLANET is

> > > occupying or ASPECTING lagna in the SIX divisional charts

> belonging

> > > to the shadvarga group, it undoubtedly gives a raja yoga " . The six

> > > charts in shadvarga group are rasi (D-1), hora (D-2), drekkana (D-

> > > 3), navamsa (D-9),dwadasamsa (D-12) and thrimsamsa (D-30).

> > >

> > > This clearly means that planets do have aspects in divisional

> charts

> > > also.Atleast rasi drishti (sign aspect) should be valid in

> > > divisional charts.In fact, the verse after the above verse talks

> > > about the magnitudes of the aspects for seeing the magnitude of

> yoga

> > > and hence it implies that graha drishti (planetary aspect) is

> being

> > > referred to.

> > >

> > > Rasi drishti of signs and planets does not have magnitudes, only

> > > graha drishti of planets does.''(Quote Ends).

> > >

> > > If you follow the discussion one can easily find the

> contradiction -

> > > Shri Narasimha Rao rightly identifies that Griha drishti is what

> > > sage had in mind as the following shloka talks about magnitudes of

> > > aspect.But soon he says atleast ''Rashi drishti'' is valid

> showing a

> > > contradiction.

> > >

> > > It is Graha drishti.

> > >

> > > Then where is the problem - pls see the next mail

> > >

> > > Regds

> > > Pradeep

> > >

> > >

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

> ------

> > >

> > >

> > >

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

> 6/4/2007 6:43 PM

> > >

> >

> >

> >