Guest guest Posted June 11, 2007 Report Share Posted June 11, 2007 Dear Chandrashekhar ji ''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.'' It is mentioned that for cancellation either a planet should be in kendra to chandra or in the Navamshaka rashi of chandra.Thus it is very clear. Similarly for the other yoga - 2 and 12th from Navamshaka Rashi of Chandra.Dashadhyayi karaka also says - As per Varahamihiracharya these are views of Jeevasharma and all and Acharya does not fully support this cancellation etc.At the same time Acharya says,such results may also come if the said planets are strong. Respect Pradeep Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 11, 2007 Report Share Posted June 11, 2007 Dear Pradeep, I do not think so. The reference is very clear about anapha/sunapha Yoga in navamsha with respect to Chandra in navamsha overruling Kemadruma yoga in rasi chart. If the learned commentator of dashaadhaayi has interpreted otherwise, it is an unfortunate mistake. I think you must have already received the shloka where reference to only navamsh ruled by Surya or Chandra is considered for health related yogas. It is better if you allow my reply to remain in the mail you reply to as it makes it easy for me to reply instead of trying to find the mail that I have sent and reference what you are replying to. Take care, Chandrashekhar. vijayadas_pradeep wrote: > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji > > ''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.'' > > It is mentioned that for cancellation either a planet should be in > kendra to chandra or in the Navamshaka rashi of chandra.Thus it is > very clear. > > Similarly for the other yoga - 2 and 12th from Navamshaka Rashi of > Chandra.Dashadhyayi karaka also says - As per Varahamihiracharya these > are views of Jeevasharma and all and Acharya does not fully support > this cancellation etc.At the same time Acharya says,such results may > also come if the said planets are strong. > > Respect > Pradeep > > > ------ > > Internal Virus Database is out-of-date. > > Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.8.9/832 - Release 6/4/2007 6:43 PM > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 12, 2007 Report Share Posted June 12, 2007 Dear Chandrashekhar ji Sorry for replying in seperate mails,causing difficulty.Will take care in future. You can very well say it is an unfortunate translation. Dashadhyayi karaka was humble enough to accept the greatness of Varahamihira and express his limitations.For me that shows his humility and greatness.Because Dashadhyayi is extolled beyond par for quality- for eg Prashna marga. Dashadhyayi kara falls in line of uncorrupted parampara.Inspite of all these,he compares his views with other scholars of past,before arriving at conclusions. There are there proofs - 1)The very shloka,Ke chit Kendra NavamshaKEshu Vadanthee - is pointing to navamshaKA rashi. 2)He quotes views of Shruthakeerthi - ''Chandrakrantha Navamsha RASHE Dwiteeya rashi gathai sunabhathra ----- vakthubhaye dhurudhura 3)He quotes Jeeva sharma - Thatha cha jeevasharama - Yad RASHI Samjhe sheethamshur navamshe janmani sthitha ..Thad dwiteeya sthithairyoga sunabhakhya......'' Then he says '' kechit ....vadanthee'' thyanena cha vyakhyathoyamartha ithi Vyaktham Bhavathi. So he says considering the above two views and the Navamshakeshu found in original shloka it means it is the RASHIS that forms the basis. Unless you want to say all the three are wrong,i feel the translation is clear enough.Moreover shri Sanjay Rath too had expressed how Amshaka is to be understood -as it is very evident from the text. Ofcourse you can hold your own views and you may be better learned.For me there is no doubt. For the other 2 shlokas reply has already been sent. Respect Pradeep oup , Chandrashekhar <chandrashekhar46 wrote: > > Dear Pradeep, > > I do not think so. The reference is very clear about anapha/sunapha Yoga > in navamsha with respect to Chandra in navamsha overruling Kemadruma > yoga in rasi chart. If the learned commentator of dashaadhaayi has > interpreted otherwise, it is an unfortunate mistake. > > I think you must have already received the shloka where reference to > only navamsh ruled by Surya or Chandra is considered for health related > yogas. It is better if you allow my reply to remain in the mail you > reply to as it makes it easy for me to reply instead of trying to find > the mail that I have sent and reference what you are replying to. > Take care, > Chandrashekhar. > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote: > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji > > > > ''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.'' > > > > It is mentioned that for cancellation either a planet should be in > > kendra to chandra or in the Navamshaka rashi of chandra.Thus it is > > very clear. > > > > Similarly for the other yoga - 2 and 12th from Navamshaka Rashi of > > Chandra.Dashadhyayi karaka also says - As per Varahamihiracharya these > > are views of Jeevasharma and all and Acharya does not fully support > > this cancellation etc.At the same time Acharya says,such results may > > also come if the said planets are strong. > > > > Respect > > Pradeep > > > > > > ------ > > > > Internal Virus Database is out-of-date. > > > > Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.8.9/832 - Release Date: 6/4/2007 6:43 PM > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 12, 2007 Report Share Posted June 12, 2007 Dear Pradeep, That is fine. I did not say it is unfortunate translation. I said that I, for one, would not set only one author as the repository of astrological knowledge and neither did the learned Daashaadhyaayikaara. It is the accepted practice to give first the principles from authorities, then the opinion of those who oppose the commentators and then only give one's own opinion with enough supportive logic and leave the judgement of who is right to other learned. That was the accepted way of writing commentaries in old days. Dashaadhyaayikara followed this practice as did every commentator till recent times when it became fashionable to claim oneself to be the originator of some astrological system that is less well known to others and create parameters that are more flights of imaginations than based on sound principles. There are many treatises on astrology other than Varaha Mihira and many other commentaries than Dashaadhyaayi on Brihat jataka. Bhattotpala, Rudra-Bhatt are two such commentators that are well respected to name a few. And then there is Krishna Mishra a contemporary of Varaha Mihira who also gave astrological principles to elaborate upon on Jaimini and so on. Please do not misunderstand me, I mean no disrespect to the Dashaadhyaayikaara. If you remember in one of my mails, long back, I wrote that the author of Prashna Marga praises Dashaadhyaayi and tells that one who does not read it can not understand the text. Yet, as I said earlier, I would not base my entire thrust on what is stated by that text to the exclusion of others including the venerated Varaha Mihira himself. Even though I respect Sanjay Rath for his astrological knowledge, as I do every practitioner of this divine science, that does not mean I accept everything that he says blindly if it goes against the basic principles given by the sages and as understood by me. that is why though Sanjay advocates graha and rasi drishtis in all divisional charts, I accept those only in certain specific cases in navamsha, Dwadashaamsha and Dreshkana charts but not in other D-Charts where I think rasi drishties are more appropriate and this also includes the Navamsha etc. charts when graha drishti is not applicable. Take care, Chandrashekhar. vijayadas_pradeep wrote: > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji > > Sorry for replying in seperate mails,causing difficulty.Will take > care in future. > > You can very well say it is an unfortunate translation. > Dashadhyayi karaka was humble enough to accept the greatness of > Varahamihira and express his limitations.For me that shows his > humility and greatness.Because Dashadhyayi is extolled beyond par for > quality- for eg Prashna marga. > > Dashadhyayi kara falls in line of uncorrupted parampara.Inspite of > all these,he compares his views with other scholars of past,before > arriving at conclusions. > > There are there proofs - > > 1)The very shloka,Ke chit Kendra NavamshaKEshu Vadanthee - is > pointing to navamshaKA rashi. > 2)He quotes views of Shruthakeerthi - ''Chandrakrantha Navamsha RASHE > Dwiteeya rashi gathai sunabhathra ----- vakthubhaye dhurudhura > 3)He quotes Jeeva sharma - Thatha cha jeevasharama - Yad RASHI Samjhe > sheethamshur navamshe janmani sthitha ..Thad dwiteeya sthithairyoga > sunabhakhya......'' > > Then he says '' kechit ....vadanthee'' thyanena cha > vyakhyathoyamartha ithi Vyaktham Bhavathi. > > So he says considering the above two views and the Navamshakeshu > found in original shloka it means it is the RASHIS that forms the > basis. > > Unless you want to say all the three are wrong,i feel the translation > is clear enough.Moreover shri Sanjay Rath too had expressed how > Amshaka is to be understood -as it is very evident from the text. > > Ofcourse you can hold your own views and you may be better > learned.For me there is no doubt. > > For the other 2 shlokas reply has already been sent. > > Respect > Pradeep > > oup <oup%40>, Chandrashekhar > <chandrashekhar46 wrote: > > > > Dear Pradeep, > > > > I do not think so. The reference is very clear about anapha/sunapha > Yoga > > in navamsha with respect to Chandra in navamsha overruling > Kemadruma > > yoga in rasi chart. If the learned commentator of dashaadhaayi has > > interpreted otherwise, it is an unfortunate mistake. > > > > I think you must have already received the shloka where reference > to > > only navamsh ruled by Surya or Chandra is considered for health > related > > yogas. It is better if you allow my reply to remain in the mail you > > reply to as it makes it easy for me to reply instead of trying to > find > > the mail that I have sent and reference what you are replying to. > > Take care, > > Chandrashekhar. > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote: > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji > > > > > > ''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.'' > > > > > > It is mentioned that for cancellation either a planet should be in > > > kendra to chandra or in the Navamshaka rashi of chandra.Thus it is > > > very clear. > > > > > > Similarly for the other yoga - 2 and 12th from Navamshaka Rashi of > > > Chandra.Dashadhyayi karaka also says - As per Varahamihiracharya > these > > > are views of Jeevasharma and all and Acharya does not fully > support > > > this cancellation etc.At the same time Acharya says,such results > may > > > also come if the said planets are strong. > > > > > > Respect > > > Pradeep > > > > > > > > > ------------------------- > ------ > > > > > > Internal Virus Database is out-of-date. > > > > > > Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.8.9/832 - Release Date: > 6/4/2007 6:43 PM > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 13, 2007 Report Share Posted June 13, 2007 Dear Chandrashekhar ji >>Even though I respect Sanjay Rath for his astrological knowledge, >>as I do every practitioner of this divine science, that does not >>mean I > accept everything that he says blindly if it goes against >>the basic > principles given by the sages and as understood by me. Your view is respectable.Who is talking has weightage ,though what is being said is more important.In this case,what shri Sanjay Rath is talking is in line with what is consisitently interpreted across the text,it is the view of many great scholars of yester years. Something more that came to my mind on Dwadashamsha - A Rashi has many Vargas.One planet can relate to one single Rashi in numerous ways. Varahamihira says - When Chandra is aspected by a planet say Surya,the result for such a drishti is the same when 1)Chandra is placed in Aries 2)Chandra is having Dwadshamsha in Aries.Why. There is a mathematical pattern to look at in dwadashamshas.Rashis in Rashichakra -12 .Dwadashamshas within a Rashi(30 degrees) - 12.Thus any dwadashamsha is mapping back to its root Rashi,through a parallel or harmonically identical -relationship(12/12). Eg:Native will be fond of war,honoured by King,Valourous,Soft etc - When -If Moon having aspect of Sun is either placed in Aries Rashi or having Dwadashamsha in Aries.(Common factor Suryas aspect.Variable -How Moon is relating to Aries - Rashiplacement/Dwadashamsha). Respect Pradeep , Chandrashekhar <chandrashekhar46 wrote: > > Dear Pradeep, > > That is fine. > > I did not say it is unfortunate translation. I said that I, for one, > would not set only one author as the repository of astrological > knowledge and neither did the learned Daashaadhyaayikaara. It is the > accepted practice to give first the principles from authorities, then > the opinion of those who oppose the commentators and then only give > one's own opinion with enough supportive logic and leave the judgement > of who is right to other learned. That was the accepted way of writing > commentaries in old days. Dashaadhyaayikara followed this practice as > did every commentator till recent times when it became fashionable to > claim oneself to be the originator of some astrological system that is > less well known to others and create parameters that are more flights of > imaginations than based on sound principles. > > There are many treatises on astrology other than Varaha Mihira and many > other commentaries than Dashaadhyaayi on Brihat jataka. Bhattotpala, > Rudra-Bhatt are two such commentators that are well respected to name a > few. And then there is Krishna Mishra a contemporary of Varaha Mihira > who also gave astrological principles to elaborate upon on Jaimini and > so on. > > Please do not misunderstand me, I mean no disrespect to the > Dashaadhyaayikaara. If you remember in one of my mails, long back, I > wrote that the author of Prashna Marga praises Dashaadhyaayi and tells > that one who does not read it can not understand the text. Yet, as I > said earlier, I would not base my entire thrust on what is stated by > that text to the exclusion of others including the venerated Varaha > Mihira himself. > > Even though I respect Sanjay Rath for his astrological knowledge, as I > do every practitioner of this divine science, that does not mean I > accept everything that he says blindly if it goes against the basic > principles given by the sages and as understood by me. that is why > though Sanjay advocates graha and rasi drishtis in all divisional > charts, I accept those only in certain specific cases in navamsha, > Dwadashaamsha and Dreshkana charts but not in other D-Charts where I > think rasi drishties are more appropriate and this also includes the > Navamsha etc. charts when graha drishti is not applicable. > > > Take care, > Chandrashekhar. > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote: > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji > > > > Sorry for replying in seperate mails,causing difficulty.Will take > > care in future. > > > > You can very well say it is an unfortunate translation. > > Dashadhyayi karaka was humble enough to accept the greatness of > > Varahamihira and express his limitations.For me that shows his > > humility and greatness.Because Dashadhyayi is extolled beyond par for > > quality- for eg Prashna marga. > > > > Dashadhyayi kara falls in line of uncorrupted parampara.Inspite of > > all these,he compares his views with other scholars of past,before > > arriving at conclusions. > > > > There are there proofs - > > > > 1)The very shloka,Ke chit Kendra NavamshaKEshu Vadanthee - is > > pointing to navamshaKA rashi. > > 2)He quotes views of Shruthakeerthi - ''Chandrakrantha Navamsha RASHE > > Dwiteeya rashi gathai sunabhathra ----- vakthubhaye dhurudhura > > 3)He quotes Jeeva sharma - Thatha cha jeevasharama - Yad RASHI Samjhe > > sheethamshur navamshe janmani sthitha ..Thad dwiteeya sthithairyoga > > sunabhakhya......'' > > > > Then he says '' kechit ....vadanthee'' thyanena cha > > vyakhyathoyamartha ithi Vyaktham Bhavathi. > > > > So he says considering the above two views and the Navamshakeshu > > found in original shloka it means it is the RASHIS that forms the > > basis. > > > > Unless you want to say all the three are wrong,i feel the translation > > is clear enough.Moreover shri Sanjay Rath too had expressed how > > Amshaka is to be understood -as it is very evident from the text. > > > > Ofcourse you can hold your own views and you may be better > > learned.For me there is no doubt. > > > > For the other 2 shlokas reply has already been sent. > > > > Respect > > Pradeep > > > > oup <oup%40>, Chandrashekhar > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote: > > > > > > Dear Pradeep, > > > > > > I do not think so. The reference is very clear about anapha/sunapha > > Yoga > > > in navamsha with respect to Chandra in navamsha overruling > > Kemadruma > > > yoga in rasi chart. If the learned commentator of dashaadhaayi has > > > interpreted otherwise, it is an unfortunate mistake. > > > > > > I think you must have already received the shloka where reference > > to > > > only navamsh ruled by Surya or Chandra is considered for health > > related > > > yogas. It is better if you allow my reply to remain in the mail you > > > reply to as it makes it easy for me to reply instead of trying to > > find > > > the mail that I have sent and reference what you are replying to. > > > Take care, > > > Chandrashekhar. > > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote: > > > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji > > > > > > > > ''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.'' > > > > > > > > It is mentioned that for cancellation either a planet should be in > > > > kendra to chandra or in the Navamshaka rashi of chandra.Thus it is > > > > very clear. > > > > > > > > Similarly for the other yoga - 2 and 12th from Navamshaka Rashi of > > > > Chandra.Dashadhyayi karaka also says - As per Varahamihiracharya > > these > > > > are views of Jeevasharma and all and Acharya does not fully > > support > > > > this cancellation etc.At the same time Acharya says,such results > > may > > > > also come if the said planets are strong. > > > > > > > > Respect > > > > Pradeep > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------- > > ------ > > > > > > > > Internal Virus Database is out-of-date. > > > > > > > > Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.8.9/832 - Release Date: > > 6/4/2007 6:43 PM > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 13, 2007 Report Share Posted June 13, 2007 Dear Pradeep, I have already expressed my views. The shlokas, at least to me are clear and if you think that is not so, that is alright with me. it also escapes me that with the weightage that you so value why you are reluctant to accept the view of Sanjay that Graha and rasi drishties are to be seen in all D-Charts, never mind I have a different opinion about where that is acceptable and where that is not. One can map back every division t the similar rasi, no doubt. But then you also have to accept graha drishtis in all D-Charts, which I do not think is right. Again by doing that you are contradicting your own earlier statements about amsha within a rasi being inseparable from that rasi. Or may I am not able to understand what you are saying. Chandrashekhar. vijayadas_pradeep wrote: > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji > > >>Even though I respect Sanjay Rath for his astrological knowledge, > >>as I do every practitioner of this divine science, that does not > >>mean I > accept everything that he says blindly if it goes against > >>the basic > principles given by the sages and as understood by me. > > Your view is respectable.Who is talking has weightage ,though what > is being said is more important.In this case,what shri Sanjay Rath > is talking is in line with what is consisitently interpreted across > the text,it is the view of many great scholars of yester years. > > Something more that came to my mind on Dwadashamsha - > A Rashi has many Vargas.One planet can relate to one single Rashi in > numerous ways. > > Varahamihira says - When Chandra is aspected by a planet say > Surya,the result for such a drishti is the same when 1)Chandra is > placed in Aries 2)Chandra is having Dwadshamsha in Aries.Why. > > There is a mathematical pattern to look at in dwadashamshas.Rashis > in Rashichakra -12 .Dwadashamshas within a Rashi(30 degrees) - > 12.Thus any dwadashamsha is mapping back to its root Rashi,through a > parallel or harmonically identical -relationship(12/12). > > Eg:Native will be fond of war,honoured by King,Valourous,Soft etc - > When -If Moon having aspect of Sun is either placed in Aries Rashi > or having Dwadashamsha in Aries.(Common factor Suryas > aspect.Variable -How Moon is relating to Aries - > Rashiplacement/Dwadashamsha). > > Respect > Pradeep > > <%40>, Chandrashekhar > <chandrashekhar46 wrote: > > > > Dear Pradeep, > > > > That is fine. > > > > I did not say it is unfortunate translation. I said that I, for > one, > > would not set only one author as the repository of astrological > > knowledge and neither did the learned Daashaadhyaayikaara. It is > the > > accepted practice to give first the principles from authorities, > then > > the opinion of those who oppose the commentators and then only > give > > one's own opinion with enough supportive logic and leave the > judgement > > of who is right to other learned. That was the accepted way of > writing > > commentaries in old days. Dashaadhyaayikara followed this practice > as > > did every commentator till recent times when it became fashionable > to > > claim oneself to be the originator of some astrological system > that is > > less well known to others and create parameters that are more > flights of > > imaginations than based on sound principles. > > > > There are many treatises on astrology other than Varaha Mihira and > many > > other commentaries than Dashaadhyaayi on Brihat jataka. > Bhattotpala, > > Rudra-Bhatt are two such commentators that are well respected to > name a > > few. And then there is Krishna Mishra a contemporary of Varaha > Mihira > > who also gave astrological principles to elaborate upon on Jaimini > and > > so on. > > > > Please do not misunderstand me, I mean no disrespect to the > > Dashaadhyaayikaara. If you remember in one of my mails, long back, > I > > wrote that the author of Prashna Marga praises Dashaadhyaayi and > tells > > that one who does not read it can not understand the text. Yet, as > I > > said earlier, I would not base my entire thrust on what is stated > by > > that text to the exclusion of others including the venerated > Varaha > > Mihira himself. > > > > Even though I respect Sanjay Rath for his astrological knowledge, > as I > > do every practitioner of this divine science, that does not mean I > > accept everything that he says blindly if it goes against the > basic > > principles given by the sages and as understood by me. that is why > > though Sanjay advocates graha and rasi drishtis in all divisional > > charts, I accept those only in certain specific cases in navamsha, > > Dwadashaamsha and Dreshkana charts but not in other D-Charts where > I > > think rasi drishties are more appropriate and this also includes > the > > Navamsha etc. charts when graha drishti is not applicable. > > > > > > Take care, > > Chandrashekhar. > > > > > > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote: > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji > > > > > > Sorry for replying in seperate mails,causing difficulty.Will take > > > care in future. > > > > > > You can very well say it is an unfortunate translation. > > > Dashadhyayi karaka was humble enough to accept the greatness of > > > Varahamihira and express his limitations.For me that shows his > > > humility and greatness.Because Dashadhyayi is extolled beyond > par for > > > quality- for eg Prashna marga. > > > > > > Dashadhyayi kara falls in line of uncorrupted parampara.Inspite > of > > > all these,he compares his views with other scholars of > past,before > > > arriving at conclusions. > > > > > > There are there proofs - > > > > > > 1)The very shloka,Ke chit Kendra NavamshaKEshu Vadanthee - is > > > pointing to navamshaKA rashi. > > > 2)He quotes views of Shruthakeerthi - ''Chandrakrantha Navamsha > RASHE > > > Dwiteeya rashi gathai sunabhathra ----- vakthubhaye dhurudhura > > > 3)He quotes Jeeva sharma - Thatha cha jeevasharama - Yad RASHI > Samjhe > > > sheethamshur navamshe janmani sthitha ..Thad dwiteeya > sthithairyoga > > > sunabhakhya......'' > > > > > > Then he says '' kechit ....vadanthee'' thyanena cha > > > vyakhyathoyamartha ithi Vyaktham Bhavathi. > > > > > > So he says considering the above two views and the Navamshakeshu > > > found in original shloka it means it is the RASHIS that forms the > > > basis. > > > > > > Unless you want to say all the three are wrong,i feel the > translation > > > is clear enough.Moreover shri Sanjay Rath too had expressed how > > > Amshaka is to be understood -as it is very evident from the text. > > > > > > Ofcourse you can hold your own views and you may be better > > > learned.For me there is no doubt. > > > > > > For the other 2 shlokas reply has already been sent. > > > > > > Respect > > > Pradeep > > > > > > oup <oup%40> > <oup%40>, > Chandrashekhar > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Dear Pradeep, > > > > > > > > I do not think so. The reference is very clear about > anapha/sunapha > > > Yoga > > > > in navamsha with respect to Chandra in navamsha overruling > > > Kemadruma > > > > yoga in rasi chart. If the learned commentator of dashaadhaayi > has > > > > interpreted otherwise, it is an unfortunate mistake. > > > > > > > > I think you must have already received the shloka where > reference > > > to > > > > only navamsh ruled by Surya or Chandra is considered for health > > > related > > > > yogas. It is better if you allow my reply to remain in the > mail you > > > > reply to as it makes it easy for me to reply instead of trying > to > > > find > > > > the mail that I have sent and reference what you are replying > to. > > > > Take care, > > > > Chandrashekhar. > > > > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji > > > > > > > > > > ''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.'' > > > > > > > > > > It is mentioned that for cancellation either a planet should > be in > > > > > kendra to chandra or in the Navamshaka rashi of chandra.Thus > it is > > > > > very clear. > > > > > > > > > > Similarly for the other yoga - 2 and 12th from Navamshaka > Rashi of > > > > > Chandra.Dashadhyayi karaka also says - As per > Varahamihiracharya > > > these > > > > > are views of Jeevasharma and all and Acharya does not fully > > > support > > > > > this cancellation etc.At the same time Acharya says,such > results > > > may > > > > > also come if the said planets are strong. > > > > > > > > > > Respect > > > > > Pradeep > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------- > > > ------ > > > > > > > > > > Internal Virus Database is out-of-date. > > > > > > > > > > Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.8.9/832 - Release > Date: > > > 6/4/2007 6:43 PM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 14, 2007 Report Share Posted June 14, 2007 Dear Chandrashekhar ji I respect your views and know for sure that i am yet to learn many fundamental principles regarding chart analysis from you. As i have said i am giving weightage based on what is being said.Karakamshaka was mentioned by him as having amshaka in a rashi.This is a fact and has been explained consistently throughout the text i am reading.It was logically correct as per defintion of amshas as well as examples,tulya principle/transits etc.It is supported by many men like Garga,Jeevasharma etc. Infact the term ''mapping back'' itself is not proper.Because as we know the amshas and amshaka sambandhas happen within the same rashi chakra.For our easiness we are marking each sambandha seperately ,but within the same skeleton of Rashi chakra.If they were not so,one cannot equate them (Thulya).Since we ourselves have individually mapped them out ,we have to map back during analysis.Like Human system all are falling within one body,the body of Kalapurusha. If shri Sanjay Rath wants to consider aspect ,he may do so.But i want to follow what is advised by sages and as per the rules given.Classical pramanas support it. Chandrashekhar ji ''mapping back'' does not mean drishti is considered from amshaka positions.Drishti is based on positions of planets in a rashi.Pls see Lagnashadvargake explanation given by me. In reality if you can try writing down amshas as well as placement with prefixes ''p'' and ''a'' in the same rashi chakra,you may understand what i am saying. Aspects always w.r to placement.Then you can say Sun is placed in 4th Jupiter in 10th. Venus is having amshaka in 10th(Rashi).Sun aspects Jupiter.Venus cannot aspect Sun. Respect Pradeep , Chandrashekhar <chandrashekhar46 wrote: > > Dear Pradeep, > > I have already expressed my views. The shlokas, at least to me are clear > and if you think that is not so, that is alright with me. it also > escapes me that with the weightage that you so value why you are > reluctant to accept the view of Sanjay that Graha and rasi drishties are > to be seen in all D-Charts, never mind I have a different opinion about > where that is acceptable and where that is not. > > One can map back every division t the similar rasi, no doubt. But then > you also have to accept graha drishtis in all D-Charts, which I do not > think is right. Again by doing that you are contradicting your own > earlier statements about amsha within a rasi being inseparable from that > rasi. > > Or may I am not able to understand what you are saying. > Chandrashekhar. > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote: > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji > > > > >>Even though I respect Sanjay Rath for his astrological knowledge, > > >>as I do every practitioner of this divine science, that does not > > >>mean I > accept everything that he says blindly if it goes against > > >>the basic > principles given by the sages and as understood by me. > > > > Your view is respectable.Who is talking has weightage ,though what > > is being said is more important.In this case,what shri Sanjay Rath > > is talking is in line with what is consisitently interpreted across > > the text,it is the view of many great scholars of yester years. > > > > Something more that came to my mind on Dwadashamsha - > > A Rashi has many Vargas.One planet can relate to one single Rashi in > > numerous ways. > > > > Varahamihira says - When Chandra is aspected by a planet say > > Surya,the result for such a drishti is the same when 1)Chandra is > > placed in Aries 2)Chandra is having Dwadshamsha in Aries.Why. > > > > There is a mathematical pattern to look at in dwadashamshas.Rashis > > in Rashichakra -12 .Dwadashamshas within a Rashi(30 degrees) - > > 12.Thus any dwadashamsha is mapping back to its root Rashi,through a > > parallel or harmonically identical -relationship(12/12). > > > > Eg:Native will be fond of war,honoured by King,Valourous,Soft etc - > > When -If Moon having aspect of Sun is either placed in Aries Rashi > > or having Dwadashamsha in Aries.(Common factor Suryas > > aspect.Variable -How Moon is relating to Aries - > > Rashiplacement/Dwadashamsha). > > > > Respect > > Pradeep > > > > <%40>, Chandrashekhar > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote: > > > > > > Dear Pradeep, > > > > > > That is fine. > > > > > > I did not say it is unfortunate translation. I said that I, for > > one, > > > would not set only one author as the repository of astrological > > > knowledge and neither did the learned Daashaadhyaayikaara. It is > > the > > > accepted practice to give first the principles from authorities, > > then > > > the opinion of those who oppose the commentators and then only > > give > > > one's own opinion with enough supportive logic and leave the > > judgement > > > of who is right to other learned. That was the accepted way of > > writing > > > commentaries in old days. Dashaadhyaayikara followed this practice > > as > > > did every commentator till recent times when it became fashionable > > to > > > claim oneself to be the originator of some astrological system > > that is > > > less well known to others and create parameters that are more > > flights of > > > imaginations than based on sound principles. > > > > > > There are many treatises on astrology other than Varaha Mihira and > > many > > > other commentaries than Dashaadhyaayi on Brihat jataka. > > Bhattotpala, > > > Rudra-Bhatt are two such commentators that are well respected to > > name a > > > few. And then there is Krishna Mishra a contemporary of Varaha > > Mihira > > > who also gave astrological principles to elaborate upon on Jaimini > > and > > > so on. > > > > > > Please do not misunderstand me, I mean no disrespect to the > > > Dashaadhyaayikaara. If you remember in one of my mails, long back, > > I > > > wrote that the author of Prashna Marga praises Dashaadhyaayi and > > tells > > > that one who does not read it can not understand the text. Yet, as > > I > > > said earlier, I would not base my entire thrust on what is stated > > by > > > that text to the exclusion of others including the venerated > > Varaha > > > Mihira himself. > > > > > > Even though I respect Sanjay Rath for his astrological knowledge, > > as I > > > do every practitioner of this divine science, that does not mean I > > > accept everything that he says blindly if it goes against the > > basic > > > principles given by the sages and as understood by me. that is why > > > though Sanjay advocates graha and rasi drishtis in all divisional > > > charts, I accept those only in certain specific cases in navamsha, > > > Dwadashaamsha and Dreshkana charts but not in other D-Charts where > > I > > > think rasi drishties are more appropriate and this also includes > > the > > > Navamsha etc. charts when graha drishti is not applicable. > > > > > > > > > Take care, > > > Chandrashekhar. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote: > > > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji > > > > > > > > Sorry for replying in seperate mails,causing difficulty.Will take > > > > care in future. > > > > > > > > You can very well say it is an unfortunate translation. > > > > Dashadhyayi karaka was humble enough to accept the greatness of > > > > Varahamihira and express his limitations.For me that shows his > > > > humility and greatness.Because Dashadhyayi is extolled beyond > > par for > > > > quality- for eg Prashna marga. > > > > > > > > Dashadhyayi kara falls in line of uncorrupted parampara.Inspite > > of > > > > all these,he compares his views with other scholars of > > past,before > > > > arriving at conclusions. > > > > > > > > There are there proofs - > > > > > > > > 1)The very shloka,Ke chit Kendra NavamshaKEshu Vadanthee - is > > > > pointing to navamshaKA rashi. > > > > 2)He quotes views of Shruthakeerthi - ''Chandrakrantha Navamsha > > RASHE > > > > Dwiteeya rashi gathai sunabhathra ----- vakthubhaye dhurudhura > > > > 3)He quotes Jeeva sharma - Thatha cha jeevasharama - Yad RASHI > > Samjhe > > > > sheethamshur navamshe janmani sthitha ..Thad dwiteeya > > sthithairyoga > > > > sunabhakhya......'' > > > > > > > > Then he says '' kechit ....vadanthee'' thyanena cha > > > > vyakhyathoyamartha ithi Vyaktham Bhavathi. > > > > > > > > So he says considering the above two views and the Navamshakeshu > > > > found in original shloka it means it is the RASHIS that forms the > > > > basis. > > > > > > > > Unless you want to say all the three are wrong,i feel the > > translation > > > > is clear enough.Moreover shri Sanjay Rath too had expressed how > > > > Amshaka is to be understood -as it is very evident from the text. > > > > > > > > Ofcourse you can hold your own views and you may be better > > > > learned.For me there is no doubt. > > > > > > > > For the other 2 shlokas reply has already been sent. > > > > > > > > Respect > > > > Pradeep > > > > > > > > oup <oup%40> > > <oup%40>, > > Chandrashekhar > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Dear Pradeep, > > > > > > > > > > I do not think so. The reference is very clear about > > anapha/sunapha > > > > Yoga > > > > > in navamsha with respect to Chandra in navamsha overruling > > > > Kemadruma > > > > > yoga in rasi chart. If the learned commentator of dashaadhaayi > > has > > > > > interpreted otherwise, it is an unfortunate mistake. > > > > > > > > > > I think you must have already received the shloka where > > reference > > > > to > > > > > only navamsh ruled by Surya or Chandra is considered for health > > > > related > > > > > yogas. It is better if you allow my reply to remain in the > > mail you > > > > > reply to as it makes it easy for me to reply instead of trying > > to > > > > find > > > > > the mail that I have sent and reference what you are replying > > to. > > > > > Take care, > > > > > Chandrashekhar. > > > > > > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji > > > > > > > > > > > > ''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.'' > > > > > > > > > > > > It is mentioned that for cancellation either a planet should > > be in > > > > > > kendra to chandra or in the Navamshaka rashi of chandra.Thus > > it is > > > > > > very clear. > > > > > > > > > > > > Similarly for the other yoga - 2 and 12th from Navamshaka > > Rashi of > > > > > > Chandra.Dashadhyayi karaka also says - As per > > Varahamihiracharya > > > > these > > > > > > are views of Jeevasharma and all and Acharya does not fully > > > > support > > > > > > this cancellation etc.At the same time Acharya says,such > > results > > > > may > > > > > > also come if the said planets are strong. > > > > > > > > > > > > Respect > > > > > > Pradeep > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------ - > > > > ------ > > > > > > > > > > > > Internal Virus Database is out-of-date. > > > > > > > > > > > > Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.8.9/832 - Release > > Date: > > > > 6/4/2007 6:43 PM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 14, 2007 Report Share Posted June 14, 2007 Dear Pradeep, I can not make you change your mind. One thing that you may have noticed in navamsha tulya rasi method is that the Bhava that the rasi occupies in rasi chart is called " N-Amsha yukta " depending on which bhava of the navamsha chakra is occupied by the rasi amsha in navamsha that is mapped back there. So if say Karka rasi occupies the 2nd bhava in rasi chart and Karka (Cancer) navamsha is in the 8th bhava in the Navamsha chart, 2nd bhava of the rasi chart is called " Ashtamsha yukta " . So my basic question is why would the sages not call the rasi or bhava to which the Karakamsha is mapped from the navamsha as Karakamsha yukta and tell to look at relative position from Karakamsha if they did, indeed, want us to map it back to rasi chart as is claimed? Again, does the Dashaadhyaayikara does say, unambiguously that aspects must only be seen in the Rasi chart and not in navamsha charts, ever? And again if he does say that does Varaha Mihira says so? I doubt. I hope you have also read my query as to how Varga of Shukra and Shani (Saturn) is to be read in Hora chart as advised by Varaha Mihira if your explanation of Shadvargake is to be accepted. Of course these are rhetorical question as your opinion is already made up. Chandrashekhar. vijayadas_pradeep wrote: > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji > > I respect your views and know for sure that i am yet to learn many > fundamental principles regarding chart analysis from you. > > As i have said i am giving weightage based on what is being > said.Karakamshaka was mentioned by him as having amshaka in a > rashi.This is a fact and has been explained consistently throughout > the text i am reading.It was logically correct as per defintion of > amshas as well as examples,tulya principle/transits etc.It is > supported by many men like Garga,Jeevasharma etc. > > Infact the term ''mapping back'' itself is not proper.Because as we > know the amshas and amshaka sambandhas happen within the same rashi > chakra.For our easiness we are marking each sambandha > seperately ,but within the same skeleton of Rashi chakra.If they > were not so,one cannot equate them (Thulya).Since we ourselves have > individually mapped them out ,we have to map back during > analysis.Like Human system all are falling within one body,the body > of Kalapurusha. > > If shri Sanjay Rath wants to consider aspect ,he may do so.But i > want to follow what is advised by sages and as per the rules > given.Classical pramanas support it. > > Chandrashekhar ji ''mapping back'' does not mean drishti is > considered from amshaka positions.Drishti is based on positions of > planets in a rashi.Pls see Lagnashadvargake explanation given by me. > In reality if you can try writing down amshas as well as placement > with prefixes ''p'' and ''a'' in the same rashi chakra,you may > understand what i am saying. > > Aspects always w.r to placement.Then you can say Sun is placed in > 4th Jupiter in 10th. Venus is having amshaka in 10th(Rashi).Sun > aspects Jupiter.Venus cannot aspect Sun. > > Respect > Pradeep > > <%40>, Chandrashekhar > <chandrashekhar46 wrote: > > > > Dear Pradeep, > > > > I have already expressed my views. The shlokas, at least to me are > clear > > and if you think that is not so, that is alright with me. it also > > escapes me that with the weightage that you so value why you are > > reluctant to accept the view of Sanjay that Graha and rasi > drishties are > > to be seen in all D-Charts, never mind I have a different opinion > about > > where that is acceptable and where that is not. > > > > One can map back every division t the similar rasi, no doubt. But > then > > you also have to accept graha drishtis in all D-Charts, which I do > not > > think is right. Again by doing that you are contradicting your own > > earlier statements about amsha within a rasi being inseparable > from that > > rasi. > > > > Or may I am not able to understand what you are saying. > > Chandrashekhar. > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote: > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji > > > > > > >>Even though I respect Sanjay Rath for his astrological > knowledge, > > > >>as I do every practitioner of this divine science, that does > not > > > >>mean I > accept everything that he says blindly if it goes > against > > > >>the basic > principles given by the sages and as understood by > me. > > > > > > Your view is respectable.Who is talking has weightage ,though > what > > > is being said is more important.In this case,what shri Sanjay > Rath > > > is talking is in line with what is consisitently interpreted > across > > > the text,it is the view of many great scholars of yester years. > > > > > > Something more that came to my mind on Dwadashamsha - > > > A Rashi has many Vargas.One planet can relate to one single > Rashi in > > > numerous ways. > > > > > > Varahamihira says - When Chandra is aspected by a planet say > > > Surya,the result for such a drishti is the same when 1)Chandra is > > > placed in Aries 2)Chandra is having Dwadshamsha in Aries.Why. > > > > > > There is a mathematical pattern to look at in > dwadashamshas.Rashis > > > in Rashichakra -12 .Dwadashamshas within a Rashi(30 degrees) - > > > 12.Thus any dwadashamsha is mapping back to its root > Rashi,through a > > > parallel or harmonically identical -relationship(12/12). > > > > > > Eg:Native will be fond of war,honoured by King,Valourous,Soft > etc - > > > When -If Moon having aspect of Sun is either placed in Aries > Rashi > > > or having Dwadashamsha in Aries.(Common factor Suryas > > > aspect.Variable -How Moon is relating to Aries - > > > Rashiplacement/Dwadashamsha). > > > > > > Respect > > > Pradeep > > > > <%40> > > > <%40>, Chandrashekhar > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Dear Pradeep, > > > > > > > > That is fine. > > > > > > > > I did not say it is unfortunate translation. I said that I, for > > > one, > > > > would not set only one author as the repository of astrological > > > > knowledge and neither did the learned Daashaadhyaayikaara. It > is > > > the > > > > accepted practice to give first the principles from > authorities, > > > then > > > > the opinion of those who oppose the commentators and then only > > > give > > > > one's own opinion with enough supportive logic and leave the > > > judgement > > > > of who is right to other learned. That was the accepted way of > > > writing > > > > commentaries in old days. Dashaadhyaayikara followed this > practice > > > as > > > > did every commentator till recent times when it became > fashionable > > > to > > > > claim oneself to be the originator of some astrological system > > > that is > > > > less well known to others and create parameters that are more > > > flights of > > > > imaginations than based on sound principles. > > > > > > > > There are many treatises on astrology other than Varaha Mihira > and > > > many > > > > other commentaries than Dashaadhyaayi on Brihat jataka. > > > Bhattotpala, > > > > Rudra-Bhatt are two such commentators that are well respected > to > > > name a > > > > few. And then there is Krishna Mishra a contemporary of Varaha > > > Mihira > > > > who also gave astrological principles to elaborate upon on > Jaimini > > > and > > > > so on. > > > > > > > > Please do not misunderstand me, I mean no disrespect to the > > > > Dashaadhyaayikaara. If you remember in one of my mails, long > back, > > > I > > > > wrote that the author of Prashna Marga praises Dashaadhyaayi > and > > > tells > > > > that one who does not read it can not understand the text. > Yet, as > > > I > > > > said earlier, I would not base my entire thrust on what is > stated > > > by > > > > that text to the exclusion of others including the venerated > > > Varaha > > > > Mihira himself. > > > > > > > > Even though I respect Sanjay Rath for his astrological > knowledge, > > > as I > > > > do every practitioner of this divine science, that does not > mean I > > > > accept everything that he says blindly if it goes against the > > > basic > > > > principles given by the sages and as understood by me. that is > why > > > > though Sanjay advocates graha and rasi drishtis in all > divisional > > > > charts, I accept those only in certain specific cases in > navamsha, > > > > Dwadashaamsha and Dreshkana charts but not in other D-Charts > where > > > I > > > > think rasi drishties are more appropriate and this also > includes > > > the > > > > Navamsha etc. charts when graha drishti is not applicable. > > > > > > > > > > > > Take care, > > > > Chandrashekhar. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji > > > > > > > > > > Sorry for replying in seperate mails,causing difficulty.Will > take > > > > > care in future. > > > > > > > > > > You can very well say it is an unfortunate translation. > > > > > Dashadhyayi karaka was humble enough to accept the greatness > of > > > > > Varahamihira and express his limitations.For me that shows > his > > > > > humility and greatness.Because Dashadhyayi is extolled beyond > > > par for > > > > > quality- for eg Prashna marga. > > > > > > > > > > Dashadhyayi kara falls in line of uncorrupted > parampara.Inspite > > > of > > > > > all these,he compares his views with other scholars of > > > past,before > > > > > arriving at conclusions. > > > > > > > > > > There are there proofs - > > > > > > > > > > 1)The very shloka,Ke chit Kendra NavamshaKEshu Vadanthee - is > > > > > pointing to navamshaKA rashi. > > > > > 2)He quotes views of Shruthakeerthi - ''Chandrakrantha > Navamsha > > > RASHE > > > > > Dwiteeya rashi gathai sunabhathra ----- vakthubhaye > dhurudhura > > > > > 3)He quotes Jeeva sharma - Thatha cha jeevasharama - Yad > RASHI > > > Samjhe > > > > > sheethamshur navamshe janmani sthitha ..Thad dwiteeya > > > sthithairyoga > > > > > sunabhakhya......'' > > > > > > > > > > Then he says '' kechit ....vadanthee'' thyanena cha > > > > > vyakhyathoyamartha ithi Vyaktham Bhavathi. > > > > > > > > > > So he says considering the above two views and the > Navamshakeshu > > > > > found in original shloka it means it is the RASHIS that > forms the > > > > > basis. > > > > > > > > > > Unless you want to say all the three are wrong,i feel the > > > translation > > > > > is clear enough.Moreover shri Sanjay Rath too had expressed > how > > > > > Amshaka is to be understood -as it is very evident from the > text. > > > > > > > > > > Ofcourse you can hold your own views and you may be better > > > > > learned.For me there is no doubt. > > > > > > > > > > For the other 2 shlokas reply has already been sent. > > > > > > > > > > Respect > > > > > Pradeep > > > > > > > > > > oup <oup%40> > <oup%40> > > > <oup%40>, > > > Chandrashekhar > > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Pradeep, > > > > > > > > > > > > I do not think so. The reference is very clear about > > > anapha/sunapha > > > > > Yoga > > > > > > in navamsha with respect to Chandra in navamsha overruling > > > > > Kemadruma > > > > > > yoga in rasi chart. If the learned commentator of > dashaadhaayi > > > has > > > > > > interpreted otherwise, it is an unfortunate mistake. > > > > > > > > > > > > I think you must have already received the shloka where > > > reference > > > > > to > > > > > > only navamsh ruled by Surya or Chandra is considered for > health > > > > > related > > > > > > yogas. It is better if you allow my reply to remain in the > > > mail you > > > > > > reply to as it makes it easy for me to reply instead of > trying > > > to > > > > > find > > > > > > the mail that I have sent and reference what you are > replying > > > to. > > > > > > Take care, > > > > > > Chandrashekhar. > > > > > > > > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ''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.'' > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It is mentioned that for cancellation either a planet > should > > > be in > > > > > > > kendra to chandra or in the Navamshaka rashi of > chandra.Thus > > > it is > > > > > > > very clear. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Similarly for the other yoga - 2 and 12th from Navamshaka > > > Rashi of > > > > > > > Chandra.Dashadhyayi karaka also says - As per > > > Varahamihiracharya > > > > > these > > > > > > > are views of Jeevasharma and all and Acharya does not > fully > > > > > support > > > > > > > this cancellation etc.At the same time Acharya says,such > > > results > > > > > may > > > > > > > also come if the said planets are strong. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Respect > > > > > > > Pradeep > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------ > - > > > > > ------ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Internal Virus Database is out-of-date. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.8.9/832 - Release > > > Date: > > > > > 6/4/2007 6:43 PM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.