Graha Drishti - Context of Varga Sambandhas - Chandrashekhar ji

[Guest guest]

Dear Chandrashekhar ji

 

Thanks for your mail and views.But i haven't seen any such shlokas

so far.

 

My concern is inspite of queries no one including (Shri Narasimha

Rao and Sanjay Rath) ardent promoters of this theory, were able to

give any shlokas pointing to such aspects.

 

The only Shloka that you have given regarding ''Trimshamsha

Chakra '' as per you,is combined with Lagna being in Vrishabha or

Thula and having navamsha in Kumbha Rashi.In Dashadhyayi the same

Shloka has been clearly mentioned.Moreover the first line is talking

about Saturn and Venus aspecting each other and in Parasparamsha.You

may kindly understand this.

 

The other Shloka regarding Lagna Shadvargake is about shadvargas of

Lagna and not Varga charts.

 

On the other hand we have innumerable shlokas,combining bhavas and

aspect in Rashi chakra along with planetary amshas (not

chakras).Even in Sthree Jataka or 7th Bhava lessons one cannot find

such a shloka.When navamsha is said to be for Spouse matter among

many,why is the reason for such a scarcity.On the other hand planets

having navamsha in the 7th bhava or Saptamsha in the 5th are

common.Kalyan Varma uses Vargas extensively -But nowhere as we want.

 

These are purely my concerns.When we are in doubt,following the

Classical examples,appeals better to me.And hope you allow me to be

curious unless one can provide with shlokas or better explanations.

 

I respect your views and understanding and prepared to learn if

corrected.

 

Respect

Pradeep

 

, Chandrashekhar

<chandrashekhar46 wrote:

>

> 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

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

[Guest guest]

Dear Pradeep,

 

You are right about there being mutual aspect of Saturn and Venus in the

first part. But similar shloka is also there about Navamsha and there is

a reasonable ground to think about whether the mutual aspect is one of

the conditions or a condition that has to co-exist. Anyway I shall give

you some other shlokas from Varaha Mihira, which either talk about

aspects or occupation of certain navamsha without reference to rasi

occupied by the grahas, which can make my point of specific instruction

overriding the general rule of not looking for aspect in navamsha or

reading the navamsha with respect to the rasi, valid. The from the first

line of every shloka every alternate line is in Sanskrit99 font and from

2nd line again every alternate line is in ULW It fonts, should you not

be able to see the letters.

 

ANt> zizNyzuÉyaem & Rgge pt¼e

 

antaù çaçinyaçubhayormågage pataìge

 

ñas]yPlIhkivÔixguLmÉaj>,

 

çväsakñayapléhakavidradhigulmabhäjaù|

 

zae;I prSprg & ha<zgyae rvINÖae>

 

çoñé parasparagåhäàçagayo ravéndvoù

 

]eÇe=wva yugpdekgyae> k«zae va.23,8.

 

kñetre'thavä yugapadekagayoù kåço vä||23|8||

 

_/When Chandra (Moon) is hemmed between two malefics and should Surya be

in Makara (Capricorn) rasi the jataka is troubled by diseases like

breathlessness, tuberculosis, spleen problems, disease of glands or some

growth in stomach region or a disease called Vidradhi (abscess). If

Surya (Sun) occupies Karka (Cancer) rasi and Chandra (Moon) occupies the

Simha (Leo) rasi or should they occupy Karka and Simha navamsha

respectively or should they be placed in either Karka or Simha navamsha

the Jataka is weak and is the patient of shosha roga ( disease of

emaciation)./_

 

papalaeiktyae> istavinjyaerStSwyaevaRXyêkoe

 

päpälokitayoù sitävanijayorastasthayorvädhyarük

 

cNÔe kkRqv & iíka<zkgte papEyuRte guýêkoe,

 

candre karkaöavåçcikäàçakagate päpairyute guhyarük|

 

iñÇI ir>)xnSwyaerzuÉyaeíNÔaedye=Ste rvaE

 

çvitré riùphadhanasthayoraçubhayoçcandrodaye'ste ravau

 

cNÔe oe=vinje=Stge c ivklae y*kRjae veizg>.23,7.

 

candre khe'vanije'stage ca vikalo yadyarkajo veçigaù||23|7||

 

/_If Shukra (Venus) and Mangal (Mars), in 7^th bhava, are aspected by a

malefic the jataka has a visible disease.When Chandra (Moon) is conjunct

a malefic and occupying a navamsha of Karka or Vrishchika the jataka has

guhya (hidden/ not visible to eye, incapable of diagnosis) disease. When

the 12^th and the 2^nd bhava are occupied by malefics and Chandra

(Moon) is in lagna with Surya (Sun) in the 7^th bhava, he gets white

leprosy. If Chandra (Moon) is in the 10^th bhava, Mangal (Mars) is in

the 7^th and should Shani (Saturn) occupy the 2^nd bhava from the Surya

(Sun) the jataka is devoid of some organ ( handicapped).

_/

 

 

There are numerous shlokas in umpteen astrological texts that give

combinations for certain yogas that are based on the basis of aspects in

Navamsha, but you can understand that at my age it is a bit difficult to

go through all the texts and find them at short notice. I usually try to

analyze a chart on the basis of fundamental principles of astrology

instead of trying to remember all the yogas that are there is the 200 or

more texts that I possess as my memory is not what it used to be. I am

sure you will understand. You may also like to understand as to why a

planet in debility in navamsha is treated debilitated even if it is in

exaltation in rasi chart when the debility rasi of any graha is bound to

be in at the very least 3 rasis. So surely that could not be related to

navamsha in rasi alone.

 

Take care,

Chandrashekhar.

 

 

_ _

 

 

 

 

 

vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

>

> Dear Chandrashekhar ji

>

> Thanks for your mail and views.But i haven't seen any such shlokas

> so far.

>

> My concern is inspite of queries no one including (Shri Narasimha

> Rao and Sanjay Rath) ardent promoters of this theory, were able to

> give any shlokas pointing to such aspects.

>

> The only Shloka that you have given regarding ''Trimshamsha

> Chakra '' as per you,is combined with Lagna being in Vrishabha or

> Thula and having navamsha in Kumbha Rashi.In Dashadhyayi the same

> Shloka has been clearly mentioned.Moreover the first line is talking

> about Saturn and Venus aspecting each other and in Parasparamsha.You

> may kindly understand this.

>

> The other Shloka regarding Lagna Shadvargake is about shadvargas of

> Lagna and not Varga charts.

>

> On the other hand we have innumerable shlokas,combining bhavas and

> aspect in Rashi chakra along with planetary amshas (not

> chakras).Even in Sthree Jataka or 7th Bhava lessons one cannot find

> such a shloka.When navamsha is said to be for Spouse matter among

> many,why is the reason for such a scarcity.On the other hand planets

> having navamsha in the 7th bhava or Saptamsha in the 5th are

> common.Kalyan Varma uses Vargas extensively -But nowhere as we want.

>

> These are purely my concerns.When we are in doubt,following the

> Classical examples,appeals better to me.And hope you allow me to be

> curious unless one can provide with shlokas or better explanations.

>

> I respect your views and understanding and prepared to learn if

> corrected.

>

> Respect

> Pradeep

>

>

> <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> <chandrashekhar46 wrote:

> >

> > 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>

> > > <%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

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >