Guest guest Posted June 11, 2007 Report Share Posted June 11, 2007 Dear Chandrashekhar ji ''Again why should one then look at 7th from lagna navamsha for spouse, as agreed by you, if everything is to be mapped back to rasi chart needs to be thought over. The 7th from lagna navamsha could lie within the lagna rasi itself and mapping it back to the benefic lagna rasi would mean it being a benefic even if it falls in malefic navamsha. Kshetra being rasi, the moment you map it back to Rasi chart, it will not be in malefic kshetra. Now this means that the principles given in Brihat jataka or Dashaadhyaayi do not hold good. I am sure you do not mean that''. I think i was not clear enough for you.How kaujesthamshe has to be interpreted has been clearly told by Dashadhyayi karaka,while interpreting other shlokas within first 10 chapters.This sis the beauty of Dashadhyayi he links shlokas and gives clues.The 7th from Lagna navamsha lies in Lagna Rashi, but mapping is done to the Kshethra or Rashi on to which this amsha is related ie Amshaka Rashi.For example if 7th from lagna navamsha is Libra we do not map it back to Aries.We map it to Libra Rashi. I will give a simple example - If Karkamasha is Virgo,and AK is Surya,and Surya is placed in the ninth navamsha in Capricorn,we do not map it back to Capricorn.We map it back to the Karaamshaka rashi which is Virgo.I feel you will know this for sure. Now if sage wants to explain all these,in the form of shlokas,he has to use brevity.So he used Kaujesthamshe -7th from Lagnamsha falling in Kujakshethra as per Dashadhyayikara.If we think we can undestand,sage is asking us to see whether the seventh from lagnamshaka rashi is belonging to Kuja or not.Thus the malefic rashi remains always a malefic,after mapping.That is why i said the counting does not matter(Rashi/Amsha). Thus the principles in Dashadhyayi and Brihat Jataka are proper and i haven't tampered them. After reading dashadhyayi it is quite clear that,frame of reference is always rashi.Either it is placement rashi or Amshaka Rashi. Respect Pradeep 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, I find the argument a bit awry. Either we do not consider bhavas in the D-Charts and also any sort of aspects at all within the chart or we do. I also fail to understand why only Dashaadhyaayi commentator's translation is to be accepted but not that of Bhattotpala whom, as you or Sreenadh said in one of the mails, the Dashaadhyaayi commentator holds in high esteem. Again why the luxury of brevity is offered to one text and not other is something that escapes me. I understand that one wants to rationalize texts to suit one's understanding of certain principles and there is nothing wrong in that. But do you not think this is carrying it too far? The method you have described is known as Navamsha tulya rasi and nothing new. But then you call the bhava occupied by Virgo as Karakamsha yukta or Lagnaamsha yukta and not Karakamsha or Lagnaamsha. There is a good deal of difference between the two. Take care, Chandrashekhar. vijayadas_pradeep wrote: > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji > > ''Again why should one then look at 7th from lagna navamsha for > spouse, as agreed by you, if everything is to be mapped back to rasi > chart needs to be thought over. The 7th from lagna navamsha could > lie within the lagna rasi itself and mapping it back to the benefic > lagna rasi would mean it being a benefic even if it falls in malefic > navamsha. Kshetra being rasi, the moment you map it back to Rasi > chart, it will not be in malefic kshetra. Now this means that the > principles given in Brihat jataka or Dashaadhyaayi do not hold good. > I am sure you do not mean that''. > > I think i was not clear enough for you.How kaujesthamshe has to be > interpreted has been clearly told by Dashadhyayi karaka,while > interpreting other shlokas within first 10 chapters.This sis the > beauty of Dashadhyayi he links shlokas and gives clues.The 7th from > Lagna navamsha lies in Lagna Rashi, but mapping is done to the > Kshethra or Rashi on to which this amsha is related ie Amshaka > Rashi.For example if 7th from lagna navamsha is Libra we do not map > it back to Aries.We map it to Libra Rashi. > > I will give a simple example - If Karkamasha is Virgo,and AK is > Surya,and Surya is placed in the ninth navamsha in Capricorn,we do > not map it back to Capricorn.We map it back to the Karaamshaka rashi > which is Virgo.I feel you will know this for sure. > Now if sage wants to explain all these,in the form of shlokas,he has > to use brevity.So he used Kaujesthamshe -7th from Lagnamsha falling > in Kujakshethra as per Dashadhyayikara.If we think we can > undestand,sage is asking us to see whether the seventh from > lagnamshaka rashi is belonging to Kuja or not.Thus the malefic rashi > remains always a malefic,after mapping.That is why i said the > counting does not matter(Rashi/Amsha). > > Thus the principles in Dashadhyayi and Brihat Jataka are proper and > i haven't tampered them. > > After reading dashadhyayi it is quite clear that,frame of reference > is always rashi.Either it is placement rashi or Amshaka Rashi. > > 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, It is not just about the comments or openian of a scholar; Let it be- * Brihajjataka * Saravali * Dashadhayi * Chatura Sundari * Presnamarga * Battolpali * Balabhadra (Hora Ratna) I think all of them are of same openian, not even providing a single sloka or statement that supports Divisional charts and aspects in Divisional charts. If you don't agree with it and argue that there are some slokas or statements that seems to support Divisional chart aspect; I have a question - If 99% of slokas and statements point in one direction; and 1% in another; which one should we follow? In such situation, it is better to correct our understanding about that 1% of slokas is the correct approach I reckon. We agree to agree or agree to disagree - this remains a fact. Love, Sreenadh , Chandrashekhar <chandrashekhar46 wrote: > > Dear Pradeep, > > I find the argument a bit awry. Either we do not consider bhavas in the > D-Charts and also any sort of aspects at all within the chart or we do. > I also fail to understand why only Dashaadhyaayi commentator's > translation is to be accepted but not that of Bhattotpala whom, as you > or Sreenadh said in one of the mails, the Dashaadhyaayi commentator > holds in high esteem. Again why the luxury of brevity is offered to one > text and not other is something that escapes me. > > I understand that one wants to rationalize texts to suit one's > understanding of certain principles and there is nothing wrong in that. > But do you not think this is carrying it too far? > > The method you have described is known as Navamsha tulya rasi and > nothing new. But then you call the bhava occupied by Virgo as Karakamsha > yukta or Lagnaamsha yukta and not Karakamsha or Lagnaamsha. There is a > good deal of difference between the two. > > Take care, > Chandrashekhar. > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote: > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji > > > > ''Again why should one then look at 7th from lagna navamsha for > > spouse, as agreed by you, if everything is to be mapped back to rasi > > chart needs to be thought over. The 7th from lagna navamsha could > > lie within the lagna rasi itself and mapping it back to the benefic > > lagna rasi would mean it being a benefic even if it falls in malefic > > navamsha. Kshetra being rasi, the moment you map it back to Rasi > > chart, it will not be in malefic kshetra. Now this means that the > > principles given in Brihat jataka or Dashaadhyaayi do not hold good. > > I am sure you do not mean that''. > > > > I think i was not clear enough for you.How kaujesthamshe has to be > > interpreted has been clearly told by Dashadhyayi karaka,while > > interpreting other shlokas within first 10 chapters.This sis the > > beauty of Dashadhyayi he links shlokas and gives clues.The 7th from > > Lagna navamsha lies in Lagna Rashi, but mapping is done to the > > Kshethra or Rashi on to which this amsha is related ie Amshaka > > Rashi.For example if 7th from lagna navamsha is Libra we do not map > > it back to Aries.We map it to Libra Rashi. > > > > I will give a simple example - If Karkamasha is Virgo,and AK is > > Surya,and Surya is placed in the ninth navamsha in Capricorn,we do > > not map it back to Capricorn.We map it back to the Karaamshaka rashi > > which is Virgo.I feel you will know this for sure. > > Now if sage wants to explain all these,in the form of shlokas,he has > > to use brevity.So he used Kaujesthamshe -7th from Lagnamsha falling > > in Kujakshethra as per Dashadhyayikara.If we think we can > > undestand,sage is asking us to see whether the seventh from > > lagnamshaka rashi is belonging to Kuja or not.Thus the malefic rashi > > remains always a malefic,after mapping.That is why i said the > > counting does not matter(Rashi/Amsha). > > > > Thus the principles in Dashadhyayi and Brihat Jataka are proper and > > i haven't tampered them. > > > > After reading dashadhyayi it is quite clear that,frame of reference > > is always rashi.Either it is placement rashi or Amshaka Rashi. > > > > 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 Chandrashekhar ji I do not think Bhatolpala,will commit such errors and i have never said so.As you know whenever i am raising a point i am trying to follow the decency of Tarka and Paramana( as advised by you).You can see that i have provided concrete and clear examples on how amsha is analyzed along with bhava and aspect.As shri Sreenadh has said,Dashadhyayi is not a mere commentary but its a study material which can be a treasure for students.Author quotes shlokas from numerous texts so that the student understands the principle well. So if you say,i am rationalizing texts to suit ones understanding - it is not so.Those who know sanskrit in this list ,including you,can read the sanskrit interpretation,which i have provided.This is exactly the reason why i had quoted sanskrit along with english.Thus it is an objective Pramana and not a subjective interpretation.Ofcourse those were just subjective views when i had started studying astrology.Fortunately with God's grace,i could see my interpretaions being identical to MahaGurus like ,Govinda Bhattathiri -Dashadhyayi. Jeevamsha,Lagnamsha,Karakamsha,Bhaumasha,Sitamsha etc points to the navamsha of planets and Lagna.These amshas fall in Rashis.When one wants to refere to those - It becomes Lagnamshaka Rashi,Nvamshaka Rashi etc.As you know Houses/Aspects etc baased on rules set by Sage.We cannot frame our own rules.Varahamihiracharya clearly says - Rashi,Rikhsa,Kshethra,Bhavana etc are same.Since the shlokas relating to Karakamsha has aspects etc,they can emanate only in sectors of 30 degree Rashis.This is a basic rule. Respect Pradeep , Chandrashekhar <chandrashekhar46 wrote: > > Dear Pradeep, > > I find the argument a bit awry. Either we do not consider bhavas in the > D-Charts and also any sort of aspects at all within the chart or we do. > I also fail to understand why only Dashaadhyaayi commentator's > translation is to be accepted but not that of Bhattotpala whom, as you > or Sreenadh said in one of the mails, the Dashaadhyaayi commentator > holds in high esteem. Again why the luxury of brevity is offered to one > text and not other is something that escapes me. > > I understand that one wants to rationalize texts to suit one's > understanding of certain principles and there is nothing wrong in that. > But do you not think this is carrying it too far? > > The method you have described is known as Navamsha tulya rasi and > nothing new. But then you call the bhava occupied by Virgo as Karakamsha > yukta or Lagnaamsha yukta and not Karakamsha or Lagnaamsha. There is a > good deal of difference between the two. > > Take care, > Chandrashekhar. > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote: > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji > > > > ''Again why should one then look at 7th from lagna navamsha for > > spouse, as agreed by you, if everything is to be mapped back to rasi > > chart needs to be thought over. The 7th from lagna navamsha could > > lie within the lagna rasi itself and mapping it back to the benefic > > lagna rasi would mean it being a benefic even if it falls in malefic > > navamsha. Kshetra being rasi, the moment you map it back to Rasi > > chart, it will not be in malefic kshetra. Now this means that the > > principles given in Brihat jataka or Dashaadhyaayi do not hold good. > > I am sure you do not mean that''. > > > > I think i was not clear enough for you.How kaujesthamshe has to be > > interpreted has been clearly told by Dashadhyayi karaka,while > > interpreting other shlokas within first 10 chapters.This sis the > > beauty of Dashadhyayi he links shlokas and gives clues.The 7th from > > Lagna navamsha lies in Lagna Rashi, but mapping is done to the > > Kshethra or Rashi on to which this amsha is related ie Amshaka > > Rashi.For example if 7th from lagna navamsha is Libra we do not map > > it back to Aries.We map it to Libra Rashi. > > > > I will give a simple example - If Karkamasha is Virgo,and AK is > > Surya,and Surya is placed in the ninth navamsha in Capricorn,we do > > not map it back to Capricorn.We map it back to the Karaamshaka rashi > > which is Virgo.I feel you will know this for sure. > > Now if sage wants to explain all these,in the form of shlokas,he has > > to use brevity.So he used Kaujesthamshe -7th from Lagnamsha falling > > in Kujakshethra as per Dashadhyayikara.If we think we can > > undestand,sage is asking us to see whether the seventh from > > lagnamshaka rashi is belonging to Kuja or not.Thus the malefic rashi > > remains always a malefic,after mapping.That is why i said the > > counting does not matter(Rashi/Amsha). > > > > Thus the principles in Dashadhyayi and Brihat Jataka are proper and > > i haven't tampered them. > > > > After reading dashadhyayi it is quite clear that,frame of reference > > is always rashi.Either it is placement rashi or Amshaka Rashi. > > > > 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 Sreenadh, I do not know whether you have understood what I have been saying for so long. I have said that in certain D-charts one can see graha aspects if the texts give specific yogas and advise aspects and in others one can look at Rasi drishties in the charts and not graha drishtis. In all the texts you mention (barring dashaadhyaayi, Chatura Sundari which I have never read) there are references where either graha drishties are asked to be considered in certain charts for certain specific yogas or certain rasis in the said charts are asked to be considered for certain specific yogas irrespective of which rasi that particular rasi denoting certain portion of the 30 degree arc of a rasi falls in. Even the venerated Parashara talks to look at strength in Navamsha by position of planets occupying kendras from Arudha Lagna in navamsha, indicating the charts are to be drawn like regular charts. That is why reference is to Navamsha lagna or Karakamsha Lagna and so on. If you think that divisional charts are of no value in view of the learned whom you have quoted, may I ask why they are talking about vargottama lagna or graha? Or is it your position that even this concept is not given in these texts? If after all the shlokas I provided indicating independent importance of the arcs termed as rasis in D-Charts you or others in this discussion have not understood what I am saying and think that divisional charts are not supported in any astrological texts, I am certainly wasting my time in this discussion. I have no wish that people follow 1% of astrology that I know. I am sure they will learn much from the 99% that those who do not want to understand what I am saying and want to twist my words know of astrology. Chandrashekhar. Sreenadh wrote: > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji, > It is not just about the comments or openian of a scholar; Let it be- > * Brihajjataka > * Saravali > * Dashadhayi > * Chatura Sundari > * Presnamarga > * Battolpali > * Balabhadra (Hora Ratna) > I think all of them are of same openian, not even providing a single > sloka or statement that supports Divisional charts and aspects in > Divisional charts. > If you don't agree with it and argue that there are some slokas or > statements that seems to support Divisional chart aspect; I have a > question - > If 99% of slokas and statements point in one direction; and 1% in > another; which one should we follow? In such situation, it is better > to correct our understanding about that 1% of slokas is the correct > approach I reckon. > We agree to agree or agree to disagree - this remains a fact. > Love, > Sreenadh > > > <%40>, Chandrashekhar > <chandrashekhar46 wrote: > > > > Dear Pradeep, > > > > I find the argument a bit awry. Either we do not consider bhavas in > the > > D-Charts and also any sort of aspects at all within the chart or we > do. > > I also fail to understand why only Dashaadhyaayi commentator's > > translation is to be accepted but not that of Bhattotpala whom, as > you > > or Sreenadh said in one of the mails, the Dashaadhyaayi commentator > > holds in high esteem. Again why the luxury of brevity is offered to > one > > text and not other is something that escapes me. > > > > I understand that one wants to rationalize texts to suit one's > > understanding of certain principles and there is nothing wrong in > that. > > But do you not think this is carrying it too far? > > > > The method you have described is known as Navamsha tulya rasi and > > nothing new. But then you call the bhava occupied by Virgo as > Karakamsha > > yukta or Lagnaamsha yukta and not Karakamsha or Lagnaamsha. There > is a > > good deal of difference between the two. > > > > Take care, > > Chandrashekhar. > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote: > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji > > > > > > ''Again why should one then look at 7th from lagna navamsha for > > > spouse, as agreed by you, if everything is to be mapped back to > rasi > > > chart needs to be thought over. The 7th from lagna navamsha could > > > lie within the lagna rasi itself and mapping it back to the > benefic > > > lagna rasi would mean it being a benefic even if it falls in > malefic > > > navamsha. Kshetra being rasi, the moment you map it back to Rasi > > > chart, it will not be in malefic kshetra. Now this means that the > > > principles given in Brihat jataka or Dashaadhyaayi do not hold > good. > > > I am sure you do not mean that''. > > > > > > I think i was not clear enough for you.How kaujesthamshe has to be > > > interpreted has been clearly told by Dashadhyayi karaka,while > > > interpreting other shlokas within first 10 chapters.This sis the > > > beauty of Dashadhyayi he links shlokas and gives clues.The 7th > from > > > Lagna navamsha lies in Lagna Rashi, but mapping is done to the > > > Kshethra or Rashi on to which this amsha is related ie Amshaka > > > Rashi.For example if 7th from lagna navamsha is Libra we do not > map > > > it back to Aries.We map it to Libra Rashi. > > > > > > I will give a simple example - If Karkamasha is Virgo,and AK is > > > Surya,and Surya is placed in the ninth navamsha in Capricorn,we do > > > not map it back to Capricorn.We map it back to the Karaamshaka > rashi > > > which is Virgo.I feel you will know this for sure. > > > Now if sage wants to explain all these,in the form of shlokas,he > has > > > to use brevity.So he used Kaujesthamshe -7th from Lagnamsha > falling > > > in Kujakshethra as per Dashadhyayikara.If we think we can > > > undestand,sage is asking us to see whether the seventh from > > > lagnamshaka rashi is belonging to Kuja or not.Thus the malefic > rashi > > > remains always a malefic,after mapping.That is why i said the > > > counting does not matter(Rashi/Amsha). > > > > > > Thus the principles in Dashadhyayi and Brihat Jataka are proper > and > > > i haven't tampered them. > > > > > > After reading dashadhyayi it is quite clear that,frame of > reference > > > is always rashi.Either it is placement rashi or Amshaka Rashi. > > > > > > 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 Chandrasekhar ji, I understand your view - but I may need more reference to decide whether to accept it or not. As of my current understanding no authentic texts (mentioned below) supports divisional charts. Even though the D-Charts are not acceptable the Amsas (or call it Vargas) are for sure are!! Let me clarify this approach- In JHora you can see the 2-chart mixed style right? Go to that section and Select " Rasi " for inner chart, and " Navamsa " for outer - you will get the mixed chart. This is what most of the South Indian astrologers are using (even though the outer squares won't be drawn). If a southern astrologer of Prasnamarga or Dasadhyayi liniage want to evaluate the Hora, then too he would be using the simiar style. For example, you can go to 2-chart mixed style in JHora and select " Rasi " for inner chart and " Hora " for outer. The same thing goes true for all other vargas such as Drekkana, Chathurdhamsa, Pachamamsa etc. This 2 chart representation style helps us to read the aspects and transit from Rasi Natal chart alone; while considering the 'influence' (strengths and results) based on the Vargs, " written outside the chart, in corresponding positions " Dear Chadrasekhar ji, please don't get agitated. We are all friends and is transferring the knowledge to each other with a readiness to learn from others. So don't worry your words are not in vain - but evidence you provide (in support of Divisional charts) is not enough to convince us (at least me) yet. Love, Sreenadh , Chandrashekhar <chandrashekhar46 wrote: > > Dear Sreenadh, > > I do not know whether you have understood what I have been saying for so > long. I have said that in certain D-charts one can see graha aspects if > the texts give specific yogas and advise aspects and in others one can > look at Rasi drishties in the charts and not graha drishtis. > In all the texts you mention (barring dashaadhyaayi, Chatura Sundari > which I have never read) there are references where either graha > drishties are asked to be considered in certain charts for certain > specific yogas or certain rasis in the said charts are asked to be > considered for certain specific yogas irrespective of which rasi that > particular rasi denoting certain portion of the 30 degree arc of a rasi > falls in. Even the venerated Parashara talks to look at strength in > Navamsha by position of planets occupying kendras from Arudha Lagna in > navamsha, indicating the charts are to be drawn like regular charts. > That is why reference is to Navamsha lagna or Karakamsha Lagna and so on. > > If you think that divisional charts are of no value in view of the > learned whom you have quoted, may I ask why they are talking about > vargottama lagna or graha? Or is it your position that even this concept > is not given in these texts? > > If after all the shlokas I provided indicating independent importance of > the arcs termed as rasis in D-Charts you or others in this discussion > have not understood what I am saying and think that divisional charts > are not supported in any astrological texts, I am certainly wasting my > time in this discussion. > > I have no wish that people follow 1% of astrology that I know. I am sure > they will learn much from the 99% that those who do not want to > understand what I am saying and want to twist my words know of astrology. > > Chandrashekhar. > > > Sreenadh wrote: > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji, > > It is not just about the comments or openian of a scholar; Let it be- > > * Brihajjataka > > * Saravali > > * Dashadhayi > > * Chatura Sundari > > * Presnamarga > > * Battolpali > > * Balabhadra (Hora Ratna) > > I think all of them are of same openian, not even providing a single > > sloka or statement that supports Divisional charts and aspects in > > Divisional charts. > > If you don't agree with it and argue that there are some slokas or > > statements that seems to support Divisional chart aspect; I have a > > question - > > If 99% of slokas and statements point in one direction; and 1% in > > another; which one should we follow? In such situation, it is better > > to correct our understanding about that 1% of slokas is the correct > > approach I reckon. > > We agree to agree or agree to disagree - this remains a fact. > > Love, > > Sreenadh > > > > > > <%40>, Chandrashekhar > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote: > > > > > > Dear Pradeep, > > > > > > I find the argument a bit awry. Either we do not consider bhavas in > > the > > > D-Charts and also any sort of aspects at all within the chart or we > > do. > > > I also fail to understand why only Dashaadhyaayi commentator's > > > translation is to be accepted but not that of Bhattotpala whom, as > > you > > > or Sreenadh said in one of the mails, the Dashaadhyaayi commentator > > > holds in high esteem. Again why the luxury of brevity is offered to > > one > > > text and not other is something that escapes me. > > > > > > I understand that one wants to rationalize texts to suit one's > > > understanding of certain principles and there is nothing wrong in > > that. > > > But do you not think this is carrying it too far? > > > > > > The method you have described is known as Navamsha tulya rasi and > > > nothing new. But then you call the bhava occupied by Virgo as > > Karakamsha > > > yukta or Lagnaamsha yukta and not Karakamsha or Lagnaamsha. There > > is a > > > good deal of difference between the two. > > > > > > Take care, > > > Chandrashekhar. > > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote: > > > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji > > > > > > > > ''Again why should one then look at 7th from lagna navamsha for > > > > spouse, as agreed by you, if everything is to be mapped back to > > rasi > > > > chart needs to be thought over. The 7th from lagna navamsha could > > > > lie within the lagna rasi itself and mapping it back to the > > benefic > > > > lagna rasi would mean it being a benefic even if it falls in > > malefic > > > > navamsha. Kshetra being rasi, the moment you map it back to Rasi > > > > chart, it will not be in malefic kshetra. Now this means that the > > > > principles given in Brihat jataka or Dashaadhyaayi do not hold > > good. > > > > I am sure you do not mean that''. > > > > > > > > I think i was not clear enough for you.How kaujesthamshe has to be > > > > interpreted has been clearly told by Dashadhyayi karaka,while > > > > interpreting other shlokas within first 10 chapters.This sis the > > > > beauty of Dashadhyayi he links shlokas and gives clues.The 7th > > from > > > > Lagna navamsha lies in Lagna Rashi, but mapping is done to the > > > > Kshethra or Rashi on to which this amsha is related ie Amshaka > > > > Rashi.For example if 7th from lagna navamsha is Libra we do not > > map > > > > it back to Aries.We map it to Libra Rashi. > > > > > > > > I will give a simple example - If Karkamasha is Virgo,and AK is > > > > Surya,and Surya is placed in the ninth navamsha in Capricorn,we do > > > > not map it back to Capricorn.We map it back to the Karaamshaka > > rashi > > > > which is Virgo.I feel you will know this for sure. > > > > Now if sage wants to explain all these,in the form of shlokas,he > > has > > > > to use brevity.So he used Kaujesthamshe -7th from Lagnamsha > > falling > > > > in Kujakshethra as per Dashadhyayikara.If we think we can > > > > undestand,sage is asking us to see whether the seventh from > > > > lagnamshaka rashi is belonging to Kuja or not.Thus the malefic > > rashi > > > > remains always a malefic,after mapping.That is why i said the > > > > counting does not matter(Rashi/Amsha). > > > > > > > > Thus the principles in Dashadhyayi and Brihat Jataka are proper > > and > > > > i haven't tampered them. > > > > > > > > After reading dashadhyayi it is quite clear that,frame of > > reference > > > > is always rashi.Either it is placement rashi or Amshaka Rashi. > > > > > > > > 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 never disputed that Navamsha and other amshas fall in a rasi. The discussion was about they can also be considered independent of rasi for either drishti or for other purpose. I think I have given enough shlokas to make my point. But if every shloka is said to mean that everything is to be replotted to rasi chart only irrespective of what the learned commentator have said, I think there is no use in carrying forward this discussion. Sanskrit as, you know, does not have punctuation mark and the same shloka can be translated in two ways. Again much depends on how a sandhi or samaas is interpreted. Best example with regard to interpretation of word " Pitrnucaraat " which can be treated as Bahuvrihi or Shashthi tatpurusha, and then whether the Upapada is to be calculated from 12th or 2nd can be argued, ad nauseum. But I am sure you are aware of this. I have tired to convey my opinion on the topic in the manner I can and perhaps I am deficient in the power of expression. Anyway, if you are certain that aspects or degree wise relationship by reason occupation of navamsha ruled by different grahas (one can choose the phrase one likes) are not to be considered in any D-Chart, you can certainly follow that logic. Take care, Chandrashekhar vijayadas_pradeep wrote: > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji > > I do not think Bhatolpala,will commit such errors and i have never > said so.As you know whenever i am raising a point i am trying to > follow the decency of Tarka and Paramana( as advised by you).You can > see that i have provided concrete and clear examples on how amsha is > analyzed along with bhava and aspect.As shri Sreenadh has > said,Dashadhyayi is not a mere commentary but its a study material > which can be a treasure for students.Author quotes shlokas from > numerous texts so that the student understands the principle well. > > So if you say,i am rationalizing texts to suit ones understanding - > it is not so.Those who know sanskrit in this list ,including you,can > read the sanskrit interpretation,which i have provided.This is > exactly the reason why i had quoted sanskrit along with english.Thus > it is an objective Pramana and not a subjective > interpretation.Ofcourse those were just subjective views when i had > started studying astrology.Fortunately with God's grace,i could see > my interpretaions being identical to MahaGurus like ,Govinda > Bhattathiri -Dashadhyayi. > > Jeevamsha,Lagnamsha,Karakamsha,Bhaumasha,Sitamsha etc points to the > navamsha of planets and Lagna.These amshas fall in Rashis.When one > wants to refere to those - It becomes Lagnamshaka Rashi,Nvamshaka > Rashi etc.As you know Houses/Aspects etc baased on rules set by > Sage.We cannot frame our own rules.Varahamihiracharya clearly says - > Rashi,Rikhsa,Kshethra,Bhavana etc are same.Since the shlokas > relating to Karakamsha has aspects etc,they can emanate only in > sectors of 30 degree Rashis.This is a basic rule. > > Respect > Pradeep > > > <%40>, Chandrashekhar > <chandrashekhar46 wrote: > > > > Dear Pradeep, > > > > I find the argument a bit awry. Either we do not consider bhavas > in the > > D-Charts and also any sort of aspects at all within the chart or > we do. > > I also fail to understand why only Dashaadhyaayi commentator's > > translation is to be accepted but not that of Bhattotpala whom, as > you > > or Sreenadh said in one of the mails, the Dashaadhyaayi > commentator > > holds in high esteem. Again why the luxury of brevity is offered > to one > > text and not other is something that escapes me. > > > > I understand that one wants to rationalize texts to suit one's > > understanding of certain principles and there is nothing wrong in > that. > > But do you not think this is carrying it too far? > > > > The method you have described is known as Navamsha tulya rasi and > > nothing new. But then you call the bhava occupied by Virgo as > Karakamsha > > yukta or Lagnaamsha yukta and not Karakamsha or Lagnaamsha. There > is a > > good deal of difference between the two. > > > > Take care, > > Chandrashekhar. > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote: > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji > > > > > > ''Again why should one then look at 7th from lagna navamsha for > > > spouse, as agreed by you, if everything is to be mapped back to > rasi > > > chart needs to be thought over. The 7th from lagna navamsha could > > > lie within the lagna rasi itself and mapping it back to the > benefic > > > lagna rasi would mean it being a benefic even if it falls in > malefic > > > navamsha. Kshetra being rasi, the moment you map it back to Rasi > > > chart, it will not be in malefic kshetra. Now this means that the > > > principles given in Brihat jataka or Dashaadhyaayi do not hold > good. > > > I am sure you do not mean that''. > > > > > > I think i was not clear enough for you.How kaujesthamshe has to > be > > > interpreted has been clearly told by Dashadhyayi karaka,while > > > interpreting other shlokas within first 10 chapters.This sis the > > > beauty of Dashadhyayi he links shlokas and gives clues.The 7th > from > > > Lagna navamsha lies in Lagna Rashi, but mapping is done to the > > > Kshethra or Rashi on to which this amsha is related ie Amshaka > > > Rashi.For example if 7th from lagna navamsha is Libra we do not > map > > > it back to Aries.We map it to Libra Rashi. > > > > > > I will give a simple example - If Karkamasha is Virgo,and AK is > > > Surya,and Surya is placed in the ninth navamsha in Capricorn,we > do > > > not map it back to Capricorn.We map it back to the Karaamshaka > rashi > > > which is Virgo.I feel you will know this for sure. > > > Now if sage wants to explain all these,in the form of shlokas,he > has > > > to use brevity.So he used Kaujesthamshe -7th from Lagnamsha > falling > > > in Kujakshethra as per Dashadhyayikara.If we think we can > > > undestand,sage is asking us to see whether the seventh from > > > lagnamshaka rashi is belonging to Kuja or not.Thus the malefic > rashi > > > remains always a malefic,after mapping.That is why i said the > > > counting does not matter(Rashi/Amsha). > > > > > > Thus the principles in Dashadhyayi and Brihat Jataka are proper > and > > > i haven't tampered them. > > > > > > After reading dashadhyayi it is quite clear that,frame of > reference > > > is always rashi.Either it is placement rashi or Amshaka Rashi. > > > > > > 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 Sreenadh, What you are telling is how to view navamsha tulya rasi or its variation. I understand that. However since the discussion has degenerated to which of the learned commentator is greater than other and sometimes even than the original author, I prefer to withdraw from the discussion. Chandrashekhar. Sreenadh wrote: > > Dear Chandrasekhar ji, > I understand your view - but I may need more reference to decide > whether to accept it or not. As of my current understanding no > authentic texts (mentioned below) supports divisional charts. > Even though the D-Charts are not acceptable the Amsas (or call it > Vargas) are for sure are!! Let me clarify this approach- > In JHora you can see the 2-chart mixed style right? Go to that > section and Select " Rasi " for inner chart, and " Navamsa " for outer - > you will get the mixed chart. This is what most of the South Indian > astrologers are using (even though the outer squares won't be drawn). > If a southern astrologer of Prasnamarga or Dasadhyayi liniage want to > evaluate the Hora, then too he would be using the simiar style. For > example, you can go to 2-chart mixed style in JHora and select " Rasi " > for inner chart and " Hora " for outer. The same thing goes true for all > other vargas such as Drekkana, Chathurdhamsa, Pachamamsa etc. > This 2 chart representation style helps us to read the aspects and > transit from Rasi Natal chart alone; while considering the 'influence' > (strengths and results) based on the Vargs, " written outside the > chart, in corresponding positions " > Dear Chadrasekhar ji, please don't get agitated. We are all friends > and is transferring the knowledge to each other with a readiness to > learn from others. So don't worry your words are not in vain - but > evidence you provide (in support of Divisional charts) is not enough > to convince us (at least me) yet. > Love, > Sreenadh > > > <%40>, Chandrashekhar > <chandrashekhar46 wrote: > > > > Dear Sreenadh, > > > > I do not know whether you have understood what I have been saying > for so > > long. I have said that in certain D-charts one can see graha aspects if > > the texts give specific yogas and advise aspects and in others one can > > look at Rasi drishties in the charts and not graha drishtis. > > In all the texts you mention (barring dashaadhyaayi, Chatura Sundari > > which I have never read) there are references where either graha > > drishties are asked to be considered in certain charts for certain > > specific yogas or certain rasis in the said charts are asked to be > > considered for certain specific yogas irrespective of which rasi that > > particular rasi denoting certain portion of the 30 degree arc of a rasi > > falls in. Even the venerated Parashara talks to look at strength in > > Navamsha by position of planets occupying kendras from Arudha Lagna in > > navamsha, indicating the charts are to be drawn like regular charts. > > That is why reference is to Navamsha lagna or Karakamsha Lagna and > so on. > > > > If you think that divisional charts are of no value in view of the > > learned whom you have quoted, may I ask why they are talking about > > vargottama lagna or graha? Or is it your position that even this > concept > > is not given in these texts? > > > > If after all the shlokas I provided indicating independent > importance of > > the arcs termed as rasis in D-Charts you or others in this discussion > > have not understood what I am saying and think that divisional charts > > are not supported in any astrological texts, I am certainly wasting my > > time in this discussion. > > > > I have no wish that people follow 1% of astrology that I know. I am > sure > > they will learn much from the 99% that those who do not want to > > understand what I am saying and want to twist my words know of > astrology. > > > > Chandrashekhar. > > > > > > Sreenadh wrote: > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji, > > > It is not just about the comments or openian of a scholar; Let it be- > > > * Brihajjataka > > > * Saravali > > > * Dashadhayi > > > * Chatura Sundari > > > * Presnamarga > > > * Battolpali > > > * Balabhadra (Hora Ratna) > > > I think all of them are of same openian, not even providing a single > > > sloka or statement that supports Divisional charts and aspects in > > > Divisional charts. > > > If you don't agree with it and argue that there are some slokas or > > > statements that seems to support Divisional chart aspect; I have a > > > question - > > > If 99% of slokas and statements point in one direction; and 1% in > > > another; which one should we follow? In such situation, it is better > > > to correct our understanding about that 1% of slokas is the correct > > > approach I reckon. > > > We agree to agree or agree to disagree - this remains a fact. > > > Love, > > > Sreenadh > > > > > > > <%40> > > > <%40>, Chandrashekhar > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Dear Pradeep, > > > > > > > > I find the argument a bit awry. Either we do not consider bhavas in > > > the > > > > D-Charts and also any sort of aspects at all within the chart or we > > > do. > > > > I also fail to understand why only Dashaadhyaayi commentator's > > > > translation is to be accepted but not that of Bhattotpala whom, as > > > you > > > > or Sreenadh said in one of the mails, the Dashaadhyaayi commentator > > > > holds in high esteem. Again why the luxury of brevity is offered to > > > one > > > > text and not other is something that escapes me. > > > > > > > > I understand that one wants to rationalize texts to suit one's > > > > understanding of certain principles and there is nothing wrong in > > > that. > > > > But do you not think this is carrying it too far? > > > > > > > > The method you have described is known as Navamsha tulya rasi and > > > > nothing new. But then you call the bhava occupied by Virgo as > > > Karakamsha > > > > yukta or Lagnaamsha yukta and not Karakamsha or Lagnaamsha. There > > > is a > > > > good deal of difference between the two. > > > > > > > > Take care, > > > > Chandrashekhar. > > > > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji > > > > > > > > > > ''Again why should one then look at 7th from lagna navamsha for > > > > > spouse, as agreed by you, if everything is to be mapped back to > > > rasi > > > > > chart needs to be thought over. The 7th from lagna navamsha could > > > > > lie within the lagna rasi itself and mapping it back to the > > > benefic > > > > > lagna rasi would mean it being a benefic even if it falls in > > > malefic > > > > > navamsha. Kshetra being rasi, the moment you map it back to Rasi > > > > > chart, it will not be in malefic kshetra. Now this means that the > > > > > principles given in Brihat jataka or Dashaadhyaayi do not hold > > > good. > > > > > I am sure you do not mean that''. > > > > > > > > > > I think i was not clear enough for you.How kaujesthamshe has to be > > > > > interpreted has been clearly told by Dashadhyayi karaka,while > > > > > interpreting other shlokas within first 10 chapters.This sis the > > > > > beauty of Dashadhyayi he links shlokas and gives clues.The 7th > > > from > > > > > Lagna navamsha lies in Lagna Rashi, but mapping is done to the > > > > > Kshethra or Rashi on to which this amsha is related ie Amshaka > > > > > Rashi.For example if 7th from lagna navamsha is Libra we do not > > > map > > > > > it back to Aries.We map it to Libra Rashi. > > > > > > > > > > I will give a simple example - If Karkamasha is Virgo,and AK is > > > > > Surya,and Surya is placed in the ninth navamsha in Capricorn,we do > > > > > not map it back to Capricorn.We map it back to the Karaamshaka > > > rashi > > > > > which is Virgo.I feel you will know this for sure. > > > > > Now if sage wants to explain all these,in the form of shlokas,he > > > has > > > > > to use brevity.So he used Kaujesthamshe -7th from Lagnamsha > > > falling > > > > > in Kujakshethra as per Dashadhyayikara.If we think we can > > > > > undestand,sage is asking us to see whether the seventh from > > > > > lagnamshaka rashi is belonging to Kuja or not.Thus the malefic > > > rashi > > > > > remains always a malefic,after mapping.That is why i said the > > > > > counting does not matter(Rashi/Amsha). > > > > > > > > > > Thus the principles in Dashadhyayi and Brihat Jataka are proper > > > and > > > > > i haven't tampered them. > > > > > > > > > > After reading dashadhyayi it is quite clear that,frame of > > > reference > > > > > is always rashi.Either it is placement rashi or Amshaka Rashi. > > > > > > > > > > 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 As you know ,the main purpose behind this discussion was to show the vague usage of Varga Charts. It is Glad to note that you too are atleast against those blind principles. Yes interpretations can vary.Samasas Sandhi etc as you have said. For example,Narayana was interpreted by shri Rath as Ayana of Nara. Shri Chandrahari had given a folk song quotaion where a water snake is termed as Koli Narayanan.Thus Vishnu may be Narayana because of his movement in water or Nara. Respect Pradeep , Chandrashekhar <chandrashekhar46 wrote: > > Dear Pradeep, > > I have never disputed that Navamsha and other amshas fall in a rasi. The > discussion was about they can also be considered independent of rasi for > either drishti or for other purpose. I think I have given enough shlokas > to make my point. > > But if every shloka is said to mean that everything is to be replotted > to rasi chart only irrespective of what the learned commentator have > said, I think there is no use in carrying forward this discussion. > > Sanskrit as, you know, does not have punctuation mark and the same > shloka can be translated in two ways. Again much depends on how a > sandhi or samaas is interpreted. Best example with regard to > interpretation of word " Pitrnucaraat " which can be treated as Bahuvrihi > or Shashthi tatpurusha, and then whether the Upapada is to be > calculated from 12th or 2nd can be argued, ad nauseum. But I am sure you > are aware of this. > > I have tired to convey my opinion on the topic in the manner I can and > perhaps I am deficient in the power of expression. Anyway, if you are > certain that aspects or degree wise relationship by reason occupation of > navamsha ruled by different grahas (one can choose the phrase one > likes) are not to be considered in any D-Chart, you can certainly follow > that logic. > > Take care, > Chandrashekhar > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote: > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji > > > > I do not think Bhatolpala,will commit such errors and i have never > > said so.As you know whenever i am raising a point i am trying to > > follow the decency of Tarka and Paramana( as advised by you).You can > > see that i have provided concrete and clear examples on how amsha is > > analyzed along with bhava and aspect.As shri Sreenadh has > > said,Dashadhyayi is not a mere commentary but its a study material > > which can be a treasure for students.Author quotes shlokas from > > numerous texts so that the student understands the principle well. > > > > So if you say,i am rationalizing texts to suit ones understanding - > > it is not so.Those who know sanskrit in this list ,including you,can > > read the sanskrit interpretation,which i have provided.This is > > exactly the reason why i had quoted sanskrit along with english.Thus > > it is an objective Pramana and not a subjective > > interpretation.Ofcourse those were just subjective views when i had > > started studying astrology.Fortunately with God's grace,i could see > > my interpretaions being identical to MahaGurus like ,Govinda > > Bhattathiri -Dashadhyayi. > > > > Jeevamsha,Lagnamsha,Karakamsha,Bhaumasha,Sitamsha etc points to the > > navamsha of planets and Lagna.These amshas fall in Rashis.When one > > wants to refere to those - It becomes Lagnamshaka Rashi,Nvamshaka > > Rashi etc.As you know Houses/Aspects etc baased on rules set by > > Sage.We cannot frame our own rules.Varahamihiracharya clearly says - > > Rashi,Rikhsa,Kshethra,Bhavana etc are same.Since the shlokas > > relating to Karakamsha has aspects etc,they can emanate only in > > sectors of 30 degree Rashis.This is a basic rule. > > > > Respect > > Pradeep > > > > > > <%40>, Chandrashekhar > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote: > > > > > > Dear Pradeep, > > > > > > I find the argument a bit awry. Either we do not consider bhavas > > in the > > > D-Charts and also any sort of aspects at all within the chart or > > we do. > > > I also fail to understand why only Dashaadhyaayi commentator's > > > translation is to be accepted but not that of Bhattotpala whom, as > > you > > > or Sreenadh said in one of the mails, the Dashaadhyaayi > > commentator > > > holds in high esteem. Again why the luxury of brevity is offered > > to one > > > text and not other is something that escapes me. > > > > > > I understand that one wants to rationalize texts to suit one's > > > understanding of certain principles and there is nothing wrong in > > that. > > > But do you not think this is carrying it too far? > > > > > > The method you have described is known as Navamsha tulya rasi and > > > nothing new. But then you call the bhava occupied by Virgo as > > Karakamsha > > > yukta or Lagnaamsha yukta and not Karakamsha or Lagnaamsha. There > > is a > > > good deal of difference between the two. > > > > > > Take care, > > > Chandrashekhar. > > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote: > > > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji > > > > > > > > ''Again why should one then look at 7th from lagna navamsha for > > > > spouse, as agreed by you, if everything is to be mapped back to > > rasi > > > > chart needs to be thought over. The 7th from lagna navamsha could > > > > lie within the lagna rasi itself and mapping it back to the > > benefic > > > > lagna rasi would mean it being a benefic even if it falls in > > malefic > > > > navamsha. Kshetra being rasi, the moment you map it back to Rasi > > > > chart, it will not be in malefic kshetra. Now this means that the > > > > principles given in Brihat jataka or Dashaadhyaayi do not hold > > good. > > > > I am sure you do not mean that''. > > > > > > > > I think i was not clear enough for you.How kaujesthamshe has to > > be > > > > interpreted has been clearly told by Dashadhyayi karaka,while > > > > interpreting other shlokas within first 10 chapters.This sis the > > > > beauty of Dashadhyayi he links shlokas and gives clues.The 7th > > from > > > > Lagna navamsha lies in Lagna Rashi, but mapping is done to the > > > > Kshethra or Rashi on to which this amsha is related ie Amshaka > > > > Rashi.For example if 7th from lagna navamsha is Libra we do not > > map > > > > it back to Aries.We map it to Libra Rashi. > > > > > > > > I will give a simple example - If Karkamasha is Virgo,and AK is > > > > Surya,and Surya is placed in the ninth navamsha in Capricorn,we > > do > > > > not map it back to Capricorn.We map it back to the Karaamshaka > > rashi > > > > which is Virgo.I feel you will know this for sure. > > > > Now if sage wants to explain all these,in the form of shlokas,he > > has > > > > to use brevity.So he used Kaujesthamshe -7th from Lagnamsha > > falling > > > > in Kujakshethra as per Dashadhyayikara.If we think we can > > > > undestand,sage is asking us to see whether the seventh from > > > > lagnamshaka rashi is belonging to Kuja or not.Thus the malefic > > rashi > > > > remains always a malefic,after mapping.That is why i said the > > > > counting does not matter(Rashi/Amsha). > > > > > > > > Thus the principles in Dashadhyayi and Brihat Jataka are proper > > and > > > > i haven't tampered them. > > > > > > > > After reading dashadhyayi it is quite clear that,frame of > > reference > > > > is always rashi.Either it is placement rashi or Amshaka Rashi. > > > > > > > > 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.