Guest guest Posted June 11, 2007 Report Share Posted June 11, 2007 Dear Chandrashekhar ji Let us see the 2 shlokas - Relevant part from shloka 7 ''Chandre Karkata VrischikamshaKA gathe Papairyuthe -Guhyaruk'' Here it means Chandra conjunct a malefic is having amshaka in Karakataka or Vrishchika Rashi.This has been explained clearly in the text.Conjuctions/Aspects/Bhavas always w.r to 30 degree sectors. (Eg Asitha Kujayor shloka).Satish ji's interpretation is similar.Chandra is conjunct a malefic and has amshaKA in Keeta/Jala rashis,resulting in Guhya Roga. Relevant part from shloka 8 ''Shoshee Paraspara GrihamshaKAyo.....'' - Either in mutual Rashi (Griha) or having Amshakas in those Rashis. ''Kshethre Thadhava Yuga Padeva'' - Surya and Chandra Together in Karka or Simha Rashis. Thus these two shlokas are not an example for vargamshas being interpreted as a ''chakra'' nor having aspect from such a disposition.If you say they are seen in isolation then yes,they are seen but again as having amshaka in a Rashi. Dashadhyayi says -Balayogath Phalam Amshakarkshayo'' - Explained as one has to compare the strength between Rashi and Amshaka Rashi while predicting results for a Graha.In the above case too we have to do so. Also answering another question of yours - Dashadhyayi says - Mishra phala if Graha has exalted Rashi but amshaka in rashi of debilitation and vice versa.Also one has to see other Vargasthithi before arriving at conclusions. NB:I request views of Shri Sanjay Rath on the shlokas 7 & 8 which Chandrashekhar ji has quoted.His students may kindly pass on. 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, Since you think that both Bhattotpala and Sitaram Jha ( who also commented on Bhattotpala's commentary of Brihatjataka) were wrong in their translation of the shlokas concerned, I can not comment on the translations offered by you. I fail to understand how Karka amshaka as you prefer to call it, irrespective of rasi occupied by by Chandra, is capable of giving results similar to being in Karka rasi if the bhavas in Navamsha are not to be considered as suggested by you. I remember you need all amshas to be mapped back to the respective rasi occupied. In the instant case that condition is not required and the arc of 3 degrees 20 minutes in any 30 degree rasi is enough to give the results. The second translation offered is even more confusing. What do you mean by having amshakas in each other's rasi? Both the rasis have many common amshas. Perhaps my own understanding of the English language is deficient as I fail to understand what you are trying to say. Do you mean that the sage wanted to convey that even if the grahas occupy any amsha other than Simha or Karka in Karka or Simha rasi the yoga comes through. If that was the case why would he talk about those amshas at all? I do not think the sage was as liberal with words as we of this generation are. Take care, Chandrashekhar. vijayadas_pradeep wrote: > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji > > Let us see the 2 shlokas - > > Relevant part from shloka 7 > > ''Chandre Karkata VrischikamshaKA gathe Papairyuthe -Guhyaruk'' > Here it means Chandra conjunct a malefic is having amshaka in > Karakataka or Vrishchika Rashi.This has been explained clearly in > the text.Conjuctions/Aspects/Bhavas always w.r to 30 degree sectors. > (Eg Asitha Kujayor shloka).Satish ji's interpretation is > similar.Chandra is conjunct a malefic and has amshaKA in Keeta/Jala > rashis,resulting in Guhya Roga. > > Relevant part from shloka 8 > > ''Shoshee Paraspara GrihamshaKAyo.....'' - Either in mutual Rashi > (Griha) or having Amshakas in those Rashis. > ''Kshethre Thadhava Yuga Padeva'' - Surya and Chandra Together in > Karka or Simha Rashis. > > Thus these two shlokas are not an example for vargamshas being > interpreted as a ''chakra'' nor having aspect from such a > disposition.If you say they are seen in isolation then yes,they are > seen but again as having amshaka in a Rashi. > > Dashadhyayi says -Balayogath Phalam Amshakarkshayo'' - Explained as > one has to compare the strength between Rashi and Amshaka Rashi > while predicting results for a Graha.In the above case too we have > to do so. > > Also answering another question of yours - Dashadhyayi says - Mishra > phala if Graha has exalted Rashi but amshaka in rashi of > debilitation and vice versa.Also one has to see other Vargasthithi > before arriving at conclusions. > > NB:I request views of Shri Sanjay Rath on the shlokas 7 & 8 which > Chandrashekhar ji has quoted.His students may kindly pass on. > > 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 I have never said Bhatolpala or Sitaram jha is wrong.For that i have to know what Bhatolpala has said.If you provide the sanskrit shloka then one can check.I cannot comment on english translations of Sanskrit shlokas. There are 2 shlokas - 1)''Chandre Karkata VrischikamshaKA gathe Papairyuthe -Guhyaruk'' Here you can see - Chandra is joining(Yuthe) Papa and having amshaka in Keeta rashis.Thus here there is no ambiguity.Chandra should have amshaka either in Karkataka Rashi or Vrishcika Rashi.It can be placed in Aries 4th amsha along with Saturn in Aries, to satisfy this condition. 2)''Shoshee Paraspara GrihamshaKAyo.....'' - Either in mutual Rashi (Griha) or having Amshakas in those Rashis. In this case,sage is clearly mentioning about Paraspara GRIHA+AMSHAKA+YO.Thus there is no ambiguity.I do not think Bhatolpala will translate this as asmha alone. Now Author dashadhyayi - gives another supporting quote from Gargee - Ithyathra Gargee Vachanam - Paraspara GRIHE yathau Yathi Vapi TadAMSHAgau Bhavethamarka Sheethamshu.First of all this shloka is crystal clear to someone who can understand a bit of sanskrit.Secondly -Dashadhyayi kara gives such an explanation.Thirdly he gives views of Gargi. If you cannot trust all these great men - Let us go by common sense and logic.Varahamihira will never use words if not necessary - Let us take some examples - 1)Chandre VrischikamshaKA gathe'' -This is the shloka immediately preceding our shloka.Here sage wants to mention about amsha so he did not use Vrischika+Griha+Amshaka gathe. 2)Shloka 9 chapter 22 -'' Anyonyamshagayo'' -Sage did not say AnyonyaGRIHA+AMSHAGAYO'' 3)''Driksamstha Vasitha Vasitha Sithou Parasparamshe'' -Sage did not say Paraspara+Griha+Amshe'' Why did Varahamihira use GRIHA+aMSHAKAYO - For me it is crystal clear - It points to mutual exchange of Surya or chandra in each others Rashi or Amsha.Placement in a Rashi or having amshaka in a rashi sometimes gives identicak results.There are umpteen such examples.One example is Chandra aspected by various planets when Chandra is in the Raashi of Mesha etc or Chandra having dwadshamsha there. I hope these many shlokas are sufficient. Respect Pradeep , Chandrashekhar <chandrashekhar46 wrote: > > Dear Pradeep, > > Since you think that both Bhattotpala and Sitaram Jha ( who also > commented on Bhattotpala's commentary of Brihatjataka) were wrong in > their translation of the shlokas concerned, I can not comment on the > translations offered by you. I fail to understand how Karka amshaka as > you prefer to call it, irrespective of rasi occupied by by Chandra, is > capable of giving results similar to being in Karka rasi if the bhavas > in Navamsha are not to be considered as suggested by you. I remember you > need all amshas to be mapped back to the respective rasi occupied. In > the instant case that condition is not required and the arc of 3 degrees > 20 minutes in any 30 degree rasi is enough to give the results. > > The second translation offered is even more confusing. What do you mean > by having amshakas in each other's rasi? Both the rasis have many common > amshas. > > Perhaps my own understanding of the English language is deficient as I > fail to understand what you are trying to say. Do you mean that the sage > wanted to convey that even if the grahas occupy any amsha other than > Simha or Karka in Karka or Simha rasi the yoga comes through. If that > was the case why would he talk about those amshas at all? I do not think > the sage was as liberal with words as we of this generation are. > > Take care, > > Chandrashekhar. > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote: > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji > > > > Let us see the 2 shlokas - > > > > Relevant part from shloka 7 > > > > ''Chandre Karkata VrischikamshaKA gathe Papairyuthe -Guhyaruk'' > > Here it means Chandra conjunct a malefic is having amshaka in > > Karakataka or Vrishchika Rashi.This has been explained clearly in > > the text.Conjuctions/Aspects/Bhavas always w.r to 30 degree sectors. > > (Eg Asitha Kujayor shloka).Satish ji's interpretation is > > similar.Chandra is conjunct a malefic and has amshaKA in Keeta/Jala > > rashis,resulting in Guhya Roga. > > > > Relevant part from shloka 8 > > > > ''Shoshee Paraspara GrihamshaKAyo.....'' - Either in mutual Rashi > > (Griha) or having Amshakas in those Rashis. > > ''Kshethre Thadhava Yuga Padeva'' - Surya and Chandra Together in > > Karka or Simha Rashis. > > > > Thus these two shlokas are not an example for vargamshas being > > interpreted as a ''chakra'' nor having aspect from such a > > disposition.If you say they are seen in isolation then yes,they are > > seen but again as having amshaka in a Rashi. > > > > Dashadhyayi says -Balayogath Phalam Amshakarkshayo'' - Explained as > > one has to compare the strength between Rashi and Amshaka Rashi > > while predicting results for a Graha.In the above case too we have > > to do so. > > > > Also answering another question of yours - Dashadhyayi says - Mishra > > phala if Graha has exalted Rashi but amshaka in rashi of > > debilitation and vice versa.Also one has to see other Vargasthithi > > before arriving at conclusions. > > > > NB:I request views of Shri Sanjay Rath on the shlokas 7 & 8 which > > Chandrashekhar ji has quoted.His students may kindly pass on. > > > > 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, I think the discussions have already been derailed by Sreenadh's obnoxious mail. I would like to point out one inconsistency in your argument below. You said " Why did Varahamihira use GRIHA+aMSHAKAYO - For me it is crystal clear - It points to mutual exchange of Surya or chandra in each others Rashi or Amsha. " So you accept that Amshas can give results even independent of mapping to rasi. If this is right why can there never be a case when the sages ask to look aspects for certain specific yogas, escapes me. More so when the learned like Bhattotpala and Sitaram Jha say so. I think you have made up your mind that nothing outside dashaadhyaayi is acceptable in astrology, and will therefore like to close this endless discussion after only briefest of comments. You said in the course of the long argument that amshas are to be seen in or mapped back to rasi charts. Most of the rasis have Karka and Simha Amshas. I have two questions in this regards. 1) To which rasi will you map them back to when Sun and Moon occupy Simha and Karka navamsha but not Karka and Simha rasis. 2) Having so mapped them back to say a rasi (apparently the rasi occupied by them) in the 11th and the 12 th and in the 4th and the 10th, do you think the results will be same for say Karka lagna? If you think the sages whom you quoted meant that the results of the hypothetical positions suggested will be identical after interpretation of such a mapping, it is high time I begin learning astrology again. Take care, Chandrashekhar. vijayadas_pradeep wrote: > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji > > I have never said Bhatolpala or Sitaram jha is wrong.For that i have > to know what Bhatolpala has said.If you provide the sanskrit shloka > then one can check.I cannot comment on english translations of > Sanskrit shlokas. > > There are 2 shlokas - > > 1)''Chandre Karkata VrischikamshaKA gathe Papairyuthe -Guhyaruk'' > Here you can see - Chandra is joining(Yuthe) Papa and having amshaka > in Keeta rashis.Thus here there is no ambiguity.Chandra should have > amshaka either in Karkataka Rashi or Vrishcika Rashi.It can be > placed in Aries 4th amsha along with Saturn in Aries, to satisfy > this condition. > > 2)''Shoshee Paraspara GrihamshaKAyo.....'' - Either in mutual Rashi > (Griha) or having Amshakas in those Rashis. > In this case,sage is clearly mentioning about Paraspara > GRIHA+AMSHAKA+YO.Thus there is no ambiguity.I do not think > Bhatolpala will translate this as asmha alone. > Now Author dashadhyayi - gives another supporting quote from Gargee - > Ithyathra Gargee Vachanam - Paraspara GRIHE yathau Yathi Vapi > TadAMSHAgau Bhavethamarka Sheethamshu.First of all this shloka is > crystal clear to someone who can understand a bit of > sanskrit.Secondly -Dashadhyayi kara gives such an > explanation.Thirdly he gives views of Gargi. > > If you cannot trust all these great men - Let us go by common sense > and logic.Varahamihira will never use words if not necessary - Let > us take some examples - > 1)Chandre VrischikamshaKA gathe'' -This is the shloka immediately > preceding our shloka.Here sage wants to mention about amsha so he > did not use Vrischika+Griha+Amshaka gathe. > > 2)Shloka 9 chapter 22 -'' Anyonyamshagayo'' -Sage did not say > AnyonyaGRIHA+AMSHAGAYO'' > > 3)''Driksamstha Vasitha Vasitha Sithou Parasparamshe'' -Sage did not > say Paraspara+Griha+Amshe'' > > Why did Varahamihira use GRIHA+aMSHAKAYO - For me it is crystal > clear - It points to mutual exchange of Surya or chandra in each > others Rashi or Amsha.Placement in a Rashi or having amshaka in a > rashi sometimes gives identicak results.There are umpteen such > examples.One example is Chandra aspected by various planets when > Chandra is in the Raashi of Mesha etc or Chandra having dwadshamsha > there. > > I hope these many shlokas are sufficient. > > Respect > Pradeep > > > <%40>, Chandrashekhar > <chandrashekhar46 wrote: > > > > Dear Pradeep, > > > > Since you think that both Bhattotpala and Sitaram Jha ( who also > > commented on Bhattotpala's commentary of Brihatjataka) were wrong > in > > their translation of the shlokas concerned, I can not comment on > the > > translations offered by you. I fail to understand how Karka > amshaka as > > you prefer to call it, irrespective of rasi occupied by by > Chandra, is > > capable of giving results similar to being in Karka rasi if the > bhavas > > in Navamsha are not to be considered as suggested by you. I > remember you > > need all amshas to be mapped back to the respective rasi occupied. > In > > the instant case that condition is not required and the arc of 3 > degrees > > 20 minutes in any 30 degree rasi is enough to give the results. > > > > The second translation offered is even more confusing. What do you > mean > > by having amshakas in each other's rasi? Both the rasis have many > common > > amshas. > > > > Perhaps my own understanding of the English language is deficient > as I > > fail to understand what you are trying to say. Do you mean that > the sage > > wanted to convey that even if the grahas occupy any amsha other > than > > Simha or Karka in Karka or Simha rasi the yoga comes through. If > that > > was the case why would he talk about those amshas at all? I do not > think > > the sage was as liberal with words as we of this generation are. > > > > Take care, > > > > Chandrashekhar. > > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote: > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji > > > > > > Let us see the 2 shlokas - > > > > > > Relevant part from shloka 7 > > > > > > ''Chandre Karkata VrischikamshaKA gathe Papairyuthe -Guhyaruk'' > > > Here it means Chandra conjunct a malefic is having amshaka in > > > Karakataka or Vrishchika Rashi.This has been explained clearly in > > > the text.Conjuctions/Aspects/Bhavas always w.r to 30 degree > sectors. > > > (Eg Asitha Kujayor shloka).Satish ji's interpretation is > > > similar.Chandra is conjunct a malefic and has amshaKA in > Keeta/Jala > > > rashis,resulting in Guhya Roga. > > > > > > Relevant part from shloka 8 > > > > > > ''Shoshee Paraspara GrihamshaKAyo.....'' - Either in mutual Rashi > > > (Griha) or having Amshakas in those Rashis. > > > ''Kshethre Thadhava Yuga Padeva'' - Surya and Chandra Together in > > > Karka or Simha Rashis. > > > > > > Thus these two shlokas are not an example for vargamshas being > > > interpreted as a ''chakra'' nor having aspect from such a > > > disposition.If you say they are seen in isolation then yes,they > are > > > seen but again as having amshaka in a Rashi. > > > > > > Dashadhyayi says -Balayogath Phalam Amshakarkshayo'' - Explained > as > > > one has to compare the strength between Rashi and Amshaka Rashi > > > while predicting results for a Graha.In the above case too we > have > > > to do so. > > > > > > Also answering another question of yours - Dashadhyayi says - > Mishra > > > phala if Graha has exalted Rashi but amshaka in rashi of > > > debilitation and vice versa.Also one has to see other > Vargasthithi > > > before arriving at conclusions. > > > > > > NB:I request views of Shri Sanjay Rath on the shlokas 7 & 8 which > > > Chandrashekhar ji has quoted.His students may kindly pass on. > > > > > > 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 Chandrashekharji, I do not understand your question of mapping. If the graha is in karka navansha, it maps back to karka rashi regardless of where it got its amsha from. The properties of it being in whatever rashi he is in will already be taken caare of from rashi chart. If guru is in meena navansha. he can get that navansha from Meena rashi or he can get get from vrishabha rashi. His position in vrishabha or meena will have its own interpretations, and its position in meena navansha its own peoperties and interpretaion. Why sun and moon exchanging signs in rashi or amsha be a problem. That property of exchange of navansha can stand on its own. How can we extrapolate that to mean that navansha now stands on its own. Does the sage give different properties to this amsha exchange in navansha if it happens between 4th and 5th bhava or 7th and 8th bhava of navansha chakra. Does the sage anywhere mention the relative position of these two signs vis a vis navansha lagna. If bhavas were to be considered in amshas the sage would mention that the exchage has to be for good houses or bad houses. Satish --- Chandrashekhar <chandrashekhar46 wrote: > Dear Pradeep, > > I think the discussions have already been derailed > by Sreenadh's > obnoxious mail. I would like to point out one > inconsistency in your > argument below. > > You said " Why did Varahamihira use GRIHA+aMSHAKAYO > - For me it is > crystal clear - It points to mutual exchange of > Surya or chandra in each > others Rashi or Amsha. " > > So you accept that Amshas can give results even > independent of mapping > to rasi. If this is right why can there never be a > case when the sages > ask to look aspects for certain specific yogas, > escapes me. More so when > the learned like Bhattotpala and Sitaram Jha say so. > > I think you have made up your mind that nothing > outside dashaadhyaayi is > acceptable in astrology, and will therefore like to > close this endless > discussion after only briefest of comments. > > You said in the course of the long argument that > amshas are to be seen > in or mapped back to rasi charts. Most of the rasis > have Karka and Simha > Amshas. I have two questions in this regards. > > 1) To which rasi will you map them back to when Sun > and Moon occupy > Simha and Karka navamsha but not Karka and Simha > rasis. > 2) Having so mapped them back to say a rasi > (apparently the rasi > occupied by them) in the 11th and the 12 th and in > the 4th and the 10th, > do you think the results will be same for say Karka > lagna? > > If you think the sages whom you quoted meant that > the results of the > hypothetical positions suggested will be identical > after interpretation > of such a mapping, it is high time I begin learning > astrology again. > > Take care, > Chandrashekhar. > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote: > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji > > > > I have never said Bhatolpala or Sitaram jha is > wrong.For that i have > > to know what Bhatolpala has said.If you provide > the sanskrit shloka > > then one can check.I cannot comment on english > translations of > > Sanskrit shlokas. > > > > There are 2 shlokas - > > > > 1)''Chandre Karkata VrischikamshaKA gathe > Papairyuthe -Guhyaruk'' > > Here you can see - Chandra is joining(Yuthe) Papa > and having amshaka > > in Keeta rashis.Thus here there is no > ambiguity.Chandra should have > > amshaka either in Karkataka Rashi or Vrishcika > Rashi.It can be > > placed in Aries 4th amsha along with Saturn in > Aries, to satisfy > > this condition. > > > > 2)''Shoshee Paraspara GrihamshaKAyo.....'' - > Either in mutual Rashi > > (Griha) or having Amshakas in those Rashis. > > In this case,sage is clearly mentioning about > Paraspara > > GRIHA+AMSHAKA+YO.Thus there is no ambiguity.I do > not think > > Bhatolpala will translate this as asmha alone. > > Now Author dashadhyayi - gives another supporting > quote from Gargee - > > Ithyathra Gargee Vachanam - Paraspara GRIHE yathau > Yathi Vapi > > TadAMSHAgau Bhavethamarka Sheethamshu.First of all > this shloka is > > crystal clear to someone who can understand a bit > of > > sanskrit.Secondly -Dashadhyayi kara gives such an > > explanation.Thirdly he gives views of Gargi. > > > > If you cannot trust all these great men - Let us > go by common sense > > and logic.Varahamihira will never use words if not > necessary - Let > > us take some examples - > > 1)Chandre VrischikamshaKA gathe'' -This is the > shloka immediately > > preceding our shloka.Here sage wants to mention > about amsha so he > > did not use Vrischika+Griha+Amshaka gathe. > > > > 2)Shloka 9 chapter 22 -'' Anyonyamshagayo'' -Sage > did not say > > AnyonyaGRIHA+AMSHAGAYO'' > > > > 3)''Driksamstha Vasitha Vasitha Sithou > Parasparamshe'' -Sage did not > > say Paraspara+Griha+Amshe'' > > > > Why did Varahamihira use GRIHA+aMSHAKAYO - For me > it is crystal > > clear - It points to mutual exchange of Surya or > chandra in each > > others Rashi or Amsha.Placement in a Rashi or > having amshaka in a > > rashi sometimes gives identicak results.There are > umpteen such > > examples.One example is Chandra aspected by > various planets when > > Chandra is in the Raashi of Mesha etc or Chandra > having dwadshamsha > > there. > > > > I hope these many shlokas are sufficient. > > > > Respect > > Pradeep > > > > > > <%40>, > Chandrashekhar > > <chandrashekhar46 wrote: > > > > > > Dear Pradeep, > > > > > > Since you think that both Bhattotpala and > Sitaram Jha ( who also > > > commented on Bhattotpala's commentary of > Brihatjataka) were wrong > > in > > > their translation of the shlokas concerned, I > can not comment on > > the > > > translations offered by you. I fail to > understand how Karka > > amshaka as > > > you prefer to call it, irrespective of rasi > occupied by by > > Chandra, is > > > capable of giving results similar to being in > Karka rasi if the > > bhavas > > > in Navamsha are not to be considered as > suggested by you. I > > remember you > > > need all amshas to be mapped back to the > respective rasi occupied. > > In > > > the instant case that condition is not required > and the arc of 3 > > degrees > > > 20 minutes in any 30 degree rasi is enough to > give the results. > > > > > > The second translation offered is even more > confusing. What do you > > mean > > > by having amshakas in each other's rasi? Both > the rasis have many > > common > > > amshas. > > > > > > Perhaps my own understanding of the English > language is deficient > > as I > > > fail to understand what you are trying to say. > Do you mean that > > the sage > > > wanted to convey that even if the grahas occupy > any amsha other > > than > > > Simha or Karka in Karka or Simha rasi the yoga > comes through. If > > that > > > was the case why would he talk about those > amshas at all? I do not > > think > > > the sage was as liberal with words as we of this > generation are. > > > > === message truncated === ______________________________\ ____ oneSearch: Finally, mobile search that gives answers, not web links. http://mobile./mobileweb/onesearch?refer=1ONXIC 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 > So you accept that Amshas can give results even independent of >mapping > to rasi. If this is right why can there never be a case >when the sages ask to look aspects for certain specific yogas, >escapes me. More so when the learned like Bhattotpala and Sitaram >Jha say so. The context was - Can varga arrangements be considered as a ''chart'' with aspects,bhava etc.The view from my side was Amshas are studied along with Rashi,bhavas -aspects in rashi chakra -Not in isolation.Now you are bringing in something which no one has ever disputed.I had even given shlokas talking about comparing strength between rashi placement and amshaka rashi. You are saying Bhatolpala said so - But as Bhatolpala did not write in english - i don't know what he inteneded.For eg:The examples provided by you gave an impressionto you like that ,though not so in reality. Eg - Hora drishti/chandradrekkanadhipathi drishti/bandhukshethra graha drishti shlokas were treated by you as varga charts. For me ,i respect your views but -the quoted shlokas are not able to prove anything about aspects in rashi chakra or Bhavas thereof - The main topic behind our debate. I have never said ,i will accept only dashadhyayi.Dashadhyayi(800 years old) is demonstrating,how to read amshas while no other text is explaining it with supportive shlokas from Garga/Jeevasharama/Shruthakeerthi etc.You may kindly give bhatolpalas sanskrit shloka ,where he is saying so(Chakras/Aspects). 1) To which rasi will you map them back to when Sun and Moon occupy Simha and Karka navamsha but not Karka and Simha rasis. As per Rashi tulya etc - any of the 9 Aries navamsha sectors from - Ta/Ge/Le/Vi/Li/Sa/Ca/Ku- can map back to one single Aries Rashi. Transit results,(Say Jupiter is transiting janma navamshaka rashi) - can be seen from a single Rashi. Out of 144 dwadashamshas, moon can occuppy the same dwadshamsha in 12 possible ways in 12 Rashis.How do we see transit results by mapping it back to a single ashi. Similarly Karka Navamsha, no matter from where we derive,has to come back to one single Karka Rashi. Pls consider this only as my learning exercise. Respect Pradeep , Chandrashekhar <chandrashekhar46 wrote: > > Dear Pradeep, > > I think the discussions have already been derailed by Sreenadh's > obnoxious mail. I would like to point out one inconsistency in your > argument below. > > You said " Why did Varahamihira use GRIHA+aMSHAKAYO - For me it is > crystal clear - It points to mutual exchange of Surya or chandra in each > others Rashi or Amsha. " > > So you accept that Amshas can give results even independent of mapping > to rasi. If this is right why can there never be a case when the sages > ask to look aspects for certain specific yogas, escapes me. More so when > the learned like Bhattotpala and Sitaram Jha say so. > > I think you have made up your mind that nothing outside dashaadhyaayi is > acceptable in astrology, and will therefore like to close this endless > discussion after only briefest of comments. > > You said in the course of the long argument that amshas are to be seen > in or mapped back to rasi charts. Most of the rasis have Karka and Simha > Amshas. I have two questions in this regards. > > 1) To which rasi will you map them back to when Sun and Moon occupy > Simha and Karka navamsha but not Karka and Simha rasis. > 2) Having so mapped them back to say a rasi (apparently the rasi > occupied by them) in the 11th and the 12 th and in the 4th and the 10th, > do you think the results will be same for say Karka lagna? > > If you think the sages whom you quoted meant that the results of the > hypothetical positions suggested will be identical after interpretation > of such a mapping, it is high time I begin learning astrology again. > > Take care, > Chandrashekhar. > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote: > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji > > > > I have never said Bhatolpala or Sitaram jha is wrong.For that i have > > to know what Bhatolpala has said.If you provide the sanskrit shloka > > then one can check.I cannot comment on english translations of > > Sanskrit shlokas. > > > > There are 2 shlokas - > > > > 1)''Chandre Karkata VrischikamshaKA gathe Papairyuthe -Guhyaruk'' > > Here you can see - Chandra is joining(Yuthe) Papa and having amshaka > > in Keeta rashis.Thus here there is no ambiguity.Chandra should have > > amshaka either in Karkataka Rashi or Vrishcika Rashi.It can be > > placed in Aries 4th amsha along with Saturn in Aries, to satisfy > > this condition. > > > > 2)''Shoshee Paraspara GrihamshaKAyo.....'' - Either in mutual Rashi > > (Griha) or having Amshakas in those Rashis. > > In this case,sage is clearly mentioning about Paraspara > > GRIHA+AMSHAKA+YO.Thus there is no ambiguity.I do not think > > Bhatolpala will translate this as asmha alone. > > Now Author dashadhyayi - gives another supporting quote from Gargee - > > Ithyathra Gargee Vachanam - Paraspara GRIHE yathau Yathi Vapi > > TadAMSHAgau Bhavethamarka Sheethamshu.First of all this shloka is > > crystal clear to someone who can understand a bit of > > sanskrit.Secondly -Dashadhyayi kara gives such an > > explanation.Thirdly he gives views of Gargi. > > > > If you cannot trust all these great men - Let us go by common sense > > and logic.Varahamihira will never use words if not necessary - Let > > us take some examples - > > 1)Chandre VrischikamshaKA gathe'' -This is the shloka immediately > > preceding our shloka.Here sage wants to mention about amsha so he > > did not use Vrischika+Griha+Amshaka gathe. > > > > 2)Shloka 9 chapter 22 -'' Anyonyamshagayo'' -Sage did not say > > AnyonyaGRIHA+AMSHAGAYO'' > > > > 3)''Driksamstha Vasitha Vasitha Sithou Parasparamshe'' -Sage did not > > say Paraspara+Griha+Amshe'' > > > > Why did Varahamihira use GRIHA+aMSHAKAYO - For me it is crystal > > clear - It points to mutual exchange of Surya or chandra in each > > others Rashi or Amsha.Placement in a Rashi or having amshaka in a > > rashi sometimes gives identicak results.There are umpteen such > > examples.One example is Chandra aspected by various planets when > > Chandra is in the Raashi of Mesha etc or Chandra having dwadshamsha > > there. > > > > I hope these many shlokas are sufficient. > > > > Respect > > Pradeep > > > > > > <%40>, Chandrashekhar > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote: > > > > > > Dear Pradeep, > > > > > > Since you think that both Bhattotpala and Sitaram Jha ( who also > > > commented on Bhattotpala's commentary of Brihatjataka) were wrong > > in > > > their translation of the shlokas concerned, I can not comment on > > the > > > translations offered by you. I fail to understand how Karka > > amshaka as > > > you prefer to call it, irrespective of rasi occupied by by > > Chandra, is > > > capable of giving results similar to being in Karka rasi if the > > bhavas > > > in Navamsha are not to be considered as suggested by you. I > > remember you > > > need all amshas to be mapped back to the respective rasi occupied. > > In > > > the instant case that condition is not required and the arc of 3 > > degrees > > > 20 minutes in any 30 degree rasi is enough to give the results. > > > > > > The second translation offered is even more confusing. What do you > > mean > > > by having amshakas in each other's rasi? Both the rasis have many > > common > > > amshas. > > > > > > Perhaps my own understanding of the English language is deficient > > as I > > > fail to understand what you are trying to say. Do you mean that > > the sage > > > wanted to convey that even if the grahas occupy any amsha other > > than > > > Simha or Karka in Karka or Simha rasi the yoga comes through. If > > that > > > was the case why would he talk about those amshas at all? I do not > > think > > > the sage was as liberal with words as we of this generation are. > > > > > > Take care, > > > > > > Chandrashekhar. > > > > > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote: > > > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji > > > > > > > > Let us see the 2 shlokas - > > > > > > > > Relevant part from shloka 7 > > > > > > > > ''Chandre Karkata VrischikamshaKA gathe Papairyuthe - Guhyaruk'' > > > > Here it means Chandra conjunct a malefic is having amshaka in > > > > Karakataka or Vrishchika Rashi.This has been explained clearly in > > > > the text.Conjuctions/Aspects/Bhavas always w.r to 30 degree > > sectors. > > > > (Eg Asitha Kujayor shloka).Satish ji's interpretation is > > > > similar.Chandra is conjunct a malefic and has amshaKA in > > Keeta/Jala > > > > rashis,resulting in Guhya Roga. > > > > > > > > Relevant part from shloka 8 > > > > > > > > ''Shoshee Paraspara GrihamshaKAyo.....'' - Either in mutual Rashi > > > > (Griha) or having Amshakas in those Rashis. > > > > ''Kshethre Thadhava Yuga Padeva'' - Surya and Chandra Together in > > > > Karka or Simha Rashis. > > > > > > > > Thus these two shlokas are not an example for vargamshas being > > > > interpreted as a ''chakra'' nor having aspect from such a > > > > disposition.If you say they are seen in isolation then yes,they > > are > > > > seen but again as having amshaka in a Rashi. > > > > > > > > Dashadhyayi says -Balayogath Phalam Amshakarkshayo'' - Explained > > as > > > > one has to compare the strength between Rashi and Amshaka Rashi > > > > while predicting results for a Graha.In the above case too we > > have > > > > to do so. > > > > > > > > Also answering another question of yours - Dashadhyayi says - > > Mishra > > > > phala if Graha has exalted Rashi but amshaka in rashi of > > > > debilitation and vice versa.Also one has to see other > > Vargasthithi > > > > before arriving at conclusions. > > > > > > > > NB:I request views of Shri Sanjay Rath on the shlokas 7 & 8 which > > > > Chandrashekhar ji has quoted.His students may kindly pass on. > > > > > > > > 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 Satish, I was just trying to get out of this discussion as minds are already made up. yet, I will tell you what I was pointing at. It is being proposed that there is no independent existence of amshas, only the amsha within a rasi. So if we talk of Karka navamsha we also have to define the rasi it falls in, for that contention to hold good. If you remember that is where the entire discussion began. If the Navamshas are only to be mapped back to identical rasis then anyway the rasis in rasi chakra and navamsha Chakras will be identical and there would be no reason to question drishti in navamsha. My stand has been that but for certain specific cases where the sages talk about drishti in navamsha or treating the amshas independent of rasi and in certain charts Graha drishti can be seen whereas in higher harmonic D-Charts rasi drishti is more appropriate. However as Sreenadh and perhaps others think that my view is that of only 1% of the astrology greats view, I withdraw from this discussion. Chandrashekhar. SPK wrote: > > Chandrashekharji, > > I do not understand your question of mapping. If the > graha is in karka navansha, it maps back to karka > rashi regardless of where it got its amsha from. The > properties of it being in whatever rashi he is in will > already be taken caare of from rashi chart. > > If guru is in meena navansha. he can get that navansha > from Meena rashi or he can get get from vrishabha > rashi. His position in vrishabha or meena will have > its own interpretations, and its position in meena > navansha its own peoperties and interpretaion. > > Why sun and moon exchanging signs in rashi or amsha be > a problem. That property of exchange of navansha can > stand on its own. How can we extrapolate that to mean > that navansha now stands on its own. Does the sage > give different properties to this amsha exchange in > navansha if it happens between 4th and 5th bhava or > 7th and 8th bhava of navansha chakra. Does the sage > anywhere mention the relative position of these two > signs vis a vis navansha lagna. If bhavas were to be > considered in amshas the sage would mention that the > exchage has to be for good houses or bad houses. > > Satish > --- Chandrashekhar <chandrashekhar46 > <chandrashekhar46%40.co.uk>> > wrote: > > > Dear Pradeep, > > > > I think the discussions have already been derailed > > by Sreenadh's > > obnoxious mail. I would like to point out one > > inconsistency in your > > argument below. > > > > You said " Why did Varahamihira use GRIHA+aMSHAKAYO > > - For me it is > > crystal clear - It points to mutual exchange of > > Surya or chandra in each > > others Rashi or Amsha. " > > > > So you accept that Amshas can give results even > > independent of mapping > > to rasi. If this is right why can there never be a > > case when the sages > > ask to look aspects for certain specific yogas, > > escapes me. More so when > > the learned like Bhattotpala and Sitaram Jha say so. > > > > I think you have made up your mind that nothing > > outside dashaadhyaayi is > > acceptable in astrology, and will therefore like to > > close this endless > > discussion after only briefest of comments. > > > > You said in the course of the long argument that > > amshas are to be seen > > in or mapped back to rasi charts. Most of the rasis > > have Karka and Simha > > Amshas. I have two questions in this regards. > > > > 1) To which rasi will you map them back to when Sun > > and Moon occupy > > Simha and Karka navamsha but not Karka and Simha > > rasis. > > 2) Having so mapped them back to say a rasi > > (apparently the rasi > > occupied by them) in the 11th and the 12 th and in > > the 4th and the 10th, > > do you think the results will be same for say Karka > > lagna? > > > > If you think the sages whom you quoted meant that > > the results of the > > hypothetical positions suggested will be identical > > after interpretation > > of such a mapping, it is high time I begin learning > > astrology again. > > > > Take care, > > Chandrashekhar. > > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote: > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji > > > > > > I have never said Bhatolpala or Sitaram jha is > > wrong.For that i have > > > to know what Bhatolpala has said.If you provide > > the sanskrit shloka > > > then one can check.I cannot comment on english > > translations of > > > Sanskrit shlokas. > > > > > > There are 2 shlokas - > > > > > > 1)''Chandre Karkata VrischikamshaKA gathe > > Papairyuthe -Guhyaruk'' > > > Here you can see - Chandra is joining(Yuthe) Papa > > and having amshaka > > > in Keeta rashis.Thus here there is no > > ambiguity.Chandra should have > > > amshaka either in Karkataka Rashi or Vrishcika > > Rashi.It can be > > > placed in Aries 4th amsha along with Saturn in > > Aries, to satisfy > > > this condition. > > > > > > 2)''Shoshee Paraspara GrihamshaKAyo.....'' - > > Either in mutual Rashi > > > (Griha) or having Amshakas in those Rashis. > > > In this case,sage is clearly mentioning about > > Paraspara > > > GRIHA+AMSHAKA+YO.Thus there is no ambiguity.I do > > not think > > > Bhatolpala will translate this as asmha alone. > > > Now Author dashadhyayi - gives another supporting > > quote from Gargee - > > > Ithyathra Gargee Vachanam - Paraspara GRIHE yathau > > Yathi Vapi > > > TadAMSHAgau Bhavethamarka Sheethamshu.First of all > > this shloka is > > > crystal clear to someone who can understand a bit > > of > > > sanskrit.Secondly -Dashadhyayi kara gives such an > > > explanation.Thirdly he gives views of Gargi. > > > > > > If you cannot trust all these great men - Let us > > go by common sense > > > and logic.Varahamihira will never use words if not > > necessary - Let > > > us take some examples - > > > 1)Chandre VrischikamshaKA gathe'' -This is the > > shloka immediately > > > preceding our shloka.Here sage wants to mention > > about amsha so he > > > did not use Vrischika+Griha+Amshaka gathe. > > > > > > 2)Shloka 9 chapter 22 -'' Anyonyamshagayo'' -Sage > > did not say > > > AnyonyaGRIHA+AMSHAGAYO'' > > > > > > 3)''Driksamstha Vasitha Vasitha Sithou > > Parasparamshe'' -Sage did not > > > say Paraspara+Griha+Amshe'' > > > > > > Why did Varahamihira use GRIHA+aMSHAKAYO - For me > > it is crystal > > > clear - It points to mutual exchange of Surya or > > chandra in each > > > others Rashi or Amsha.Placement in a Rashi or > > having amshaka in a > > > rashi sometimes gives identicak results.There are > > umpteen such > > > examples.One example is Chandra aspected by > > various planets when > > > Chandra is in the Raashi of Mesha etc or Chandra > > having dwadshamsha > > > there. > > > > > > I hope these many shlokas are sufficient. > > > > > > Respect > > > Pradeep > > > > > > > <%40> > > > <%40>, > > Chandrashekhar > > > <chandrashekhar46 wrote: > > > > > > > > Dear Pradeep, > > > > > > > > Since you think that both Bhattotpala and > > Sitaram Jha ( who also > > > > commented on Bhattotpala's commentary of > > Brihatjataka) were wrong > > > in > > > > their translation of the shlokas concerned, I > > can not comment on > > > the > > > > translations offered by you. I fail to > > understand how Karka > > > amshaka as > > > > you prefer to call it, irrespective of rasi > > occupied by by > > > Chandra, is > > > > capable of giving results similar to being in > > Karka rasi if the > > > bhavas > > > > in Navamsha are not to be considered as > > suggested by you. I > > > remember you > > > > need all amshas to be mapped back to the > > respective rasi occupied. > > > In > > > > the instant case that condition is not required > > and the arc of 3 > > > degrees > > > > 20 minutes in any 30 degree rasi is enough to > > give the results. > > > > > > > > The second translation offered is even more > > confusing. What do you > > > mean > > > > by having amshakas in each other's rasi? Both > > the rasis have many > > > common > > > > amshas. > > > > > > > > Perhaps my own understanding of the English > > language is deficient > > > as I > > > > fail to understand what you are trying to say. > > Do you mean that > > > the sage > > > > wanted to convey that even if the grahas occupy > > any amsha other > > > than > > > > Simha or Karka in Karka or Simha rasi the yoga > > comes through. If > > > that > > > > was the case why would he talk about those > > amshas at all? I do not > > > think > > > > the sage was as liberal with words as we of this > > generation are. > > > > > > > === message truncated === > > ________ > oneSearch: Finally, mobile search > that gives answers, not web links. > http://mobile./mobileweb/onesearch?refer=1ONXIC > <http://mobile./mobileweb/onesearch?refer=1ONXIC> > > > ------ > > > > Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.8.13/844 - Release 6/11/2007 5:10 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, If Varga arrangement can not be viewed as a chart why draw it in that manner at all, is something one should seriously think about. I have never understood how Karakamsha is projected to mean Rasi indicated by Karakamsha in Rasi chart. But then I am too set in my ways to understand the modern logic and so when a sage says look at 2nd from Karakamsha I look at 2nd from the Amsha occupied by the Atmakaraka and not the Rasi which is equivalent to the Amsha occupied by karaka. I am sure there must be some ancient Sanskrit grammar that equates Amsha to rasi, but I have never had access to such a grammar. As there is no reason to continue the discussion as no explanation of why occupation of only amshas that give yoga according to the sages if they must necessarily be mapped back to their own rasi, even if the sages do not say that, and assumption of such amshas being in identical rasis can only mean they are vargottama navamshas and why the sages should not call them vargottam in the first place, is not forthcoming. Chandrashekhar. vijayadas_pradeep wrote: > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji > > > So you accept that Amshas can give results even independent of > >mapping > to rasi. If this is right why can there never be a case > >when the sages ask to look aspects for certain specific yogas, > >escapes me. More so when the learned like Bhattotpala and Sitaram > >Jha say so. > > The context was - Can varga arrangements be considered as > a ''chart'' with aspects,bhava etc.The view from my side was Amshas > are studied along with Rashi,bhavas -aspects in rashi chakra -Not in > isolation.Now you are bringing in something which no one has ever > disputed.I had even given shlokas talking about comparing strength > between rashi placement and amshaka rashi. > > You are saying Bhatolpala said so - But as Bhatolpala did not write > in english - i don't know what he inteneded.For eg:The examples > provided by you gave an impressionto you like that ,though not so in > reality. > Eg - Hora drishti/chandradrekkanadhipathi drishti/bandhukshethra > graha drishti shlokas were treated by you as varga charts. > For me ,i respect your views but -the quoted shlokas are not able > to prove anything about aspects in rashi chakra or Bhavas thereof - > The main topic behind our debate. > > I have never said ,i will accept only dashadhyayi.Dashadhyayi(800 > years old) is demonstrating,how to read amshas while no other text > is explaining it with supportive shlokas from > Garga/Jeevasharama/Shruthakeerthi etc.You may kindly give > bhatolpalas sanskrit shloka ,where he is saying so(Chakras/Aspects). > > 1) To which rasi will you map them back to when Sun and Moon occupy > Simha and Karka navamsha but not Karka and Simha rasis. > > As per Rashi tulya etc - any of the 9 Aries navamsha sectors from - > Ta/Ge/Le/Vi/Li/Sa/Ca/Ku- can map back to one single Aries Rashi. > > Transit results,(Say Jupiter is transiting janma navamshaka rashi) - > can be seen from a single Rashi. > > Out of 144 dwadashamshas, moon can occuppy the same dwadshamsha in > 12 possible ways in 12 Rashis.How do we see transit results by > mapping it back to a single ashi. > > Similarly Karka Navamsha, no matter from where we derive,has to come > back to one single Karka Rashi. > > Pls consider this only as my learning exercise. > > Respect > Pradeep > > <%40>, Chandrashekhar > <chandrashekhar46 wrote: > > > > Dear Pradeep, > > > > I think the discussions have already been derailed by Sreenadh's > > obnoxious mail. I would like to point out one inconsistency in > your > > argument below. > > > > You said " Why did Varahamihira use GRIHA+aMSHAKAYO - For me it is > > crystal clear - It points to mutual exchange of Surya or chandra > in each > > others Rashi or Amsha. " > > > > So you accept that Amshas can give results even independent of > mapping > > to rasi. If this is right why can there never be a case when the > sages > > ask to look aspects for certain specific yogas, escapes me. More > so when > > the learned like Bhattotpala and Sitaram Jha say so. > > > > I think you have made up your mind that nothing outside > dashaadhyaayi is > > acceptable in astrology, and will therefore like to close this > endless > > discussion after only briefest of comments. > > > > You said in the course of the long argument that amshas are to be > seen > > in or mapped back to rasi charts. Most of the rasis have Karka and > Simha > > Amshas. I have two questions in this regards. > > > > 1) To which rasi will you map them back to when Sun and Moon > occupy > > Simha and Karka navamsha but not Karka and Simha rasis. > > 2) Having so mapped them back to say a rasi (apparently the rasi > > occupied by them) in the 11th and the 12 th and in the 4th and the > 10th, > > do you think the results will be same for say Karka lagna? > > > > If you think the sages whom you quoted meant that the results of > the > > hypothetical positions suggested will be identical after > interpretation > > of such a mapping, it is high time I begin learning astrology > again. > > > > Take care, > > Chandrashekhar. > > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote: > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji > > > > > > I have never said Bhatolpala or Sitaram jha is wrong.For that i > have > > > to know what Bhatolpala has said.If you provide the sanskrit > shloka > > > then one can check.I cannot comment on english translations of > > > Sanskrit shlokas. > > > > > > There are 2 shlokas - > > > > > > 1)''Chandre Karkata VrischikamshaKA gathe Papairyuthe -Guhyaruk'' > > > Here you can see - Chandra is joining(Yuthe) Papa and having > amshaka > > > in Keeta rashis.Thus here there is no ambiguity.Chandra should > have > > > amshaka either in Karkataka Rashi or Vrishcika Rashi.It can be > > > placed in Aries 4th amsha along with Saturn in Aries, to satisfy > > > this condition. > > > > > > 2)''Shoshee Paraspara GrihamshaKAyo.....'' - Either in mutual > Rashi > > > (Griha) or having Amshakas in those Rashis. > > > In this case,sage is clearly mentioning about Paraspara > > > GRIHA+AMSHAKA+YO.Thus there is no ambiguity.I do not think > > > Bhatolpala will translate this as asmha alone. > > > Now Author dashadhyayi - gives another supporting quote from > Gargee - > > > Ithyathra Gargee Vachanam - Paraspara GRIHE yathau Yathi Vapi > > > TadAMSHAgau Bhavethamarka Sheethamshu.First of all this shloka is > > > crystal clear to someone who can understand a bit of > > > sanskrit.Secondly -Dashadhyayi kara gives such an > > > explanation.Thirdly he gives views of Gargi. > > > > > > If you cannot trust all these great men - Let us go by common > sense > > > and logic.Varahamihira will never use words if not necessary - > Let > > > us take some examples - > > > 1)Chandre VrischikamshaKA gathe'' -This is the shloka immediately > > > preceding our shloka.Here sage wants to mention about amsha so he > > > did not use Vrischika+Griha+Amshaka gathe. > > > > > > 2)Shloka 9 chapter 22 -'' Anyonyamshagayo'' -Sage did not say > > > AnyonyaGRIHA+AMSHAGAYO'' > > > > > > 3)''Driksamstha Vasitha Vasitha Sithou Parasparamshe'' -Sage did > not > > > say Paraspara+Griha+Amshe'' > > > > > > Why did Varahamihira use GRIHA+aMSHAKAYO - For me it is crystal > > > clear - It points to mutual exchange of Surya or chandra in each > > > others Rashi or Amsha.Placement in a Rashi or having amshaka in a > > > rashi sometimes gives identicak results.There are umpteen such > > > examples.One example is Chandra aspected by various planets when > > > Chandra is in the Raashi of Mesha etc or Chandra having > dwadshamsha > > > there. > > > > > > I hope these many shlokas are sufficient. > > > > > > Respect > > > Pradeep > > > > > > > <%40> > > > <%40>, Chandrashekhar > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Dear Pradeep, > > > > > > > > Since you think that both Bhattotpala and Sitaram Jha ( who > also > > > > commented on Bhattotpala's commentary of Brihatjataka) were > wrong > > > in > > > > their translation of the shlokas concerned, I can not comment > on > > > the > > > > translations offered by you. I fail to understand how Karka > > > amshaka as > > > > you prefer to call it, irrespective of rasi occupied by by > > > Chandra, is > > > > capable of giving results similar to being in Karka rasi if the > > > bhavas > > > > in Navamsha are not to be considered as suggested by you. I > > > remember you > > > > need all amshas to be mapped back to the respective rasi > occupied. > > > In > > > > the instant case that condition is not required and the arc of > 3 > > > degrees > > > > 20 minutes in any 30 degree rasi is enough to give the results. > > > > > > > > The second translation offered is even more confusing. What do > you > > > mean > > > > by having amshakas in each other's rasi? Both the rasis have > many > > > common > > > > amshas. > > > > > > > > Perhaps my own understanding of the English language is > deficient > > > as I > > > > fail to understand what you are trying to say. Do you mean that > > > the sage > > > > wanted to convey that even if the grahas occupy any amsha other > > > than > > > > Simha or Karka in Karka or Simha rasi the yoga comes through. > If > > > that > > > > was the case why would he talk about those amshas at all? I do > not > > > think > > > > the sage was as liberal with words as we of this generation > are. > > > > > > > > Take care, > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar. > > > > > > > > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji > > > > > > > > > > Let us see the 2 shlokas - > > > > > > > > > > Relevant part from shloka 7 > > > > > > > > > > ''Chandre Karkata VrischikamshaKA gathe Papairyuthe - > Guhyaruk'' > > > > > Here it means Chandra conjunct a malefic is having amshaka in > > > > > Karakataka or Vrishchika Rashi.This has been explained > clearly in > > > > > the text.Conjuctions/Aspects/Bhavas always w.r to 30 degree > > > sectors. > > > > > (Eg Asitha Kujayor shloka).Satish ji's interpretation is > > > > > similar.Chandra is conjunct a malefic and has amshaKA in > > > Keeta/Jala > > > > > rashis,resulting in Guhya Roga. > > > > > > > > > > Relevant part from shloka 8 > > > > > > > > > > ''Shoshee Paraspara GrihamshaKAyo.....'' - Either in mutual > Rashi > > > > > (Griha) or having Amshakas in those Rashis. > > > > > ''Kshethre Thadhava Yuga Padeva'' - Surya and Chandra > Together in > > > > > Karka or Simha Rashis. > > > > > > > > > > Thus these two shlokas are not an example for vargamshas > being > > > > > interpreted as a ''chakra'' nor having aspect from such a > > > > > disposition.If you say they are seen in isolation then > yes,they > > > are > > > > > seen but again as having amshaka in a Rashi. > > > > > > > > > > Dashadhyayi says -Balayogath Phalam Amshakarkshayo'' - > Explained > > > as > > > > > one has to compare the strength between Rashi and Amshaka > Rashi > > > > > while predicting results for a Graha.In the above case too we > > > have > > > > > to do so. > > > > > > > > > > Also answering another question of yours - Dashadhyayi says - > > > Mishra > > > > > phala if Graha has exalted Rashi but amshaka in rashi of > > > > > debilitation and vice versa.Also one has to see other > > > Vargasthithi > > > > > before arriving at conclusions. > > > > > > > > > > NB:I request views of Shri Sanjay Rath on the shlokas 7 & 8 > which > > > > > Chandrashekhar ji has quoted.His students may kindly pass on. > > > > > > > > > > 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 have given my views in naother mail.They are happening within the same Rashi chakra,similar to sukshma as well as sthula is happening within the same organ within human body. Since we are mapping them out individually for easiness,we have to map them back. Regarding Karakamsha i will give you specific shloka where sage is mentioning Rashi. Vargottama navamsha points to a planet or our Lagna having amsha in a rashi where it is placed.Karka navamsha can fall in Aries as well as Cancer.Planet in 4th navamsha as well as in the 1st navamsha in Cancer relates back to Karka.But the one in Aries will not have Vargottama. I respect your views and would like to say that,our discussion has given others a background on the whole scenario.This helps them to frame their own views.I am not saying i am right or i am wrong.The debate was really fruitful. Respect Pradeep Respect Pradeep , Chandrashekhar <chandrashekhar46 wrote: > > Dear Pradeep, > > If Varga arrangement can not be viewed as a chart why draw it in that > manner at all, is something one should seriously think about. I have > never understood how Karakamsha is projected to mean Rasi indicated by > Karakamsha in Rasi chart. But then I am too set in my ways to understand > the modern logic and so when a sage says look at 2nd from Karakamsha I > look at 2nd from the Amsha occupied by the Atmakaraka and not the Rasi > which is equivalent to the Amsha occupied by karaka. > > I am sure there must be some ancient Sanskrit grammar that equates Amsha > to rasi, but I have never had access to such a grammar. > > As there is no reason to continue the discussion as no explanation of > why occupation of only amshas that give yoga according to the sages if > they must necessarily be mapped back to their own rasi, even if the > sages do not say that, and assumption of such amshas being in identical > rasis can only mean they are vargottama navamshas and why the sages > should not call them vargottam in the first place, is not forthcoming. > > > Chandrashekhar. > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote: > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji > > > > > So you accept that Amshas can give results even independent of > > >mapping > to rasi. If this is right why can there never be a case > > >when the sages ask to look aspects for certain specific yogas, > > >escapes me. More so when the learned like Bhattotpala and Sitaram > > >Jha say so. > > > > The context was - Can varga arrangements be considered as > > a ''chart'' with aspects,bhava etc.The view from my side was Amshas > > are studied along with Rashi,bhavas -aspects in rashi chakra - Not in > > isolation.Now you are bringing in something which no one has ever > > disputed.I had even given shlokas talking about comparing strength > > between rashi placement and amshaka rashi. > > > > You are saying Bhatolpala said so - But as Bhatolpala did not write > > in english - i don't know what he inteneded.For eg:The examples > > provided by you gave an impressionto you like that ,though not so in > > reality. > > Eg - Hora drishti/chandradrekkanadhipathi drishti/bandhukshethra > > graha drishti shlokas were treated by you as varga charts. > > For me ,i respect your views but -the quoted shlokas are not able > > to prove anything about aspects in rashi chakra or Bhavas thereof - > > The main topic behind our debate. > > > > I have never said ,i will accept only dashadhyayi.Dashadhyayi(800 > > years old) is demonstrating,how to read amshas while no other text > > is explaining it with supportive shlokas from > > Garga/Jeevasharama/Shruthakeerthi etc.You may kindly give > > bhatolpalas sanskrit shloka ,where he is saying so (Chakras/Aspects). > > > > 1) To which rasi will you map them back to when Sun and Moon occupy > > Simha and Karka navamsha but not Karka and Simha rasis. > > > > As per Rashi tulya etc - any of the 9 Aries navamsha sectors from - > > Ta/Ge/Le/Vi/Li/Sa/Ca/Ku- can map back to one single Aries Rashi. > > > > Transit results,(Say Jupiter is transiting janma navamshaka rashi) - > > can be seen from a single Rashi. > > > > Out of 144 dwadashamshas, moon can occuppy the same dwadshamsha in > > 12 possible ways in 12 Rashis.How do we see transit results by > > mapping it back to a single ashi. > > > > Similarly Karka Navamsha, no matter from where we derive,has to come > > back to one single Karka Rashi. > > > > Pls consider this only as my learning exercise. > > > > Respect > > Pradeep > > > > <%40>, Chandrashekhar > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote: > > > > > > Dear Pradeep, > > > > > > I think the discussions have already been derailed by Sreenadh's > > > obnoxious mail. I would like to point out one inconsistency in > > your > > > argument below. > > > > > > You said " Why did Varahamihira use GRIHA+aMSHAKAYO - For me it is > > > crystal clear - It points to mutual exchange of Surya or chandra > > in each > > > others Rashi or Amsha. " > > > > > > So you accept that Amshas can give results even independent of > > mapping > > > to rasi. If this is right why can there never be a case when the > > sages > > > ask to look aspects for certain specific yogas, escapes me. More > > so when > > > the learned like Bhattotpala and Sitaram Jha say so. > > > > > > I think you have made up your mind that nothing outside > > dashaadhyaayi is > > > acceptable in astrology, and will therefore like to close this > > endless > > > discussion after only briefest of comments. > > > > > > You said in the course of the long argument that amshas are to be > > seen > > > in or mapped back to rasi charts. Most of the rasis have Karka and > > Simha > > > Amshas. I have two questions in this regards. > > > > > > 1) To which rasi will you map them back to when Sun and Moon > > occupy > > > Simha and Karka navamsha but not Karka and Simha rasis. > > > 2) Having so mapped them back to say a rasi (apparently the rasi > > > occupied by them) in the 11th and the 12 th and in the 4th and the > > 10th, > > > do you think the results will be same for say Karka lagna? > > > > > > If you think the sages whom you quoted meant that the results of > > the > > > hypothetical positions suggested will be identical after > > interpretation > > > of such a mapping, it is high time I begin learning astrology > > again. > > > > > > Take care, > > > Chandrashekhar. > > > > > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote: > > > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji > > > > > > > > I have never said Bhatolpala or Sitaram jha is wrong.For that i > > have > > > > to know what Bhatolpala has said.If you provide the sanskrit > > shloka > > > > then one can check.I cannot comment on english translations of > > > > Sanskrit shlokas. > > > > > > > > There are 2 shlokas - > > > > > > > > 1)''Chandre Karkata VrischikamshaKA gathe Papairyuthe - Guhyaruk'' > > > > Here you can see - Chandra is joining(Yuthe) Papa and having > > amshaka > > > > in Keeta rashis.Thus here there is no ambiguity.Chandra should > > have > > > > amshaka either in Karkataka Rashi or Vrishcika Rashi.It can be > > > > placed in Aries 4th amsha along with Saturn in Aries, to satisfy > > > > this condition. > > > > > > > > 2)''Shoshee Paraspara GrihamshaKAyo.....'' - Either in mutual > > Rashi > > > > (Griha) or having Amshakas in those Rashis. > > > > In this case,sage is clearly mentioning about Paraspara > > > > GRIHA+AMSHAKA+YO.Thus there is no ambiguity.I do not think > > > > Bhatolpala will translate this as asmha alone. > > > > Now Author dashadhyayi - gives another supporting quote from > > Gargee - > > > > Ithyathra Gargee Vachanam - Paraspara GRIHE yathau Yathi Vapi > > > > TadAMSHAgau Bhavethamarka Sheethamshu.First of all this shloka is > > > > crystal clear to someone who can understand a bit of > > > > sanskrit.Secondly -Dashadhyayi kara gives such an > > > > explanation.Thirdly he gives views of Gargi. > > > > > > > > If you cannot trust all these great men - Let us go by common > > sense > > > > and logic.Varahamihira will never use words if not necessary - > > Let > > > > us take some examples - > > > > 1)Chandre VrischikamshaKA gathe'' -This is the shloka immediately > > > > preceding our shloka.Here sage wants to mention about amsha so he > > > > did not use Vrischika+Griha+Amshaka gathe. > > > > > > > > 2)Shloka 9 chapter 22 -'' Anyonyamshagayo'' -Sage did not say > > > > AnyonyaGRIHA+AMSHAGAYO'' > > > > > > > > 3)''Driksamstha Vasitha Vasitha Sithou Parasparamshe'' -Sage did > > not > > > > say Paraspara+Griha+Amshe'' > > > > > > > > Why did Varahamihira use GRIHA+aMSHAKAYO - For me it is crystal > > > > clear - It points to mutual exchange of Surya or chandra in each > > > > others Rashi or Amsha.Placement in a Rashi or having amshaka in a > > > > rashi sometimes gives identicak results.There are umpteen such > > > > examples.One example is Chandra aspected by various planets when > > > > Chandra is in the Raashi of Mesha etc or Chandra having > > dwadshamsha > > > > there. > > > > > > > > I hope these many shlokas are sufficient. > > > > > > > > Respect > > > > Pradeep > > > > > > > > > > <%40> > > > > <%40>, Chandrashekhar > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Dear Pradeep, > > > > > > > > > > Since you think that both Bhattotpala and Sitaram Jha ( who > > also > > > > > commented on Bhattotpala's commentary of Brihatjataka) were > > wrong > > > > in > > > > > their translation of the shlokas concerned, I can not comment > > on > > > > the > > > > > translations offered by you. I fail to understand how Karka > > > > amshaka as > > > > > you prefer to call it, irrespective of rasi occupied by by > > > > Chandra, is > > > > > capable of giving results similar to being in Karka rasi if the > > > > bhavas > > > > > in Navamsha are not to be considered as suggested by you. I > > > > remember you > > > > > need all amshas to be mapped back to the respective rasi > > occupied. > > > > In > > > > > the instant case that condition is not required and the arc of > > 3 > > > > degrees > > > > > 20 minutes in any 30 degree rasi is enough to give the results. > > > > > > > > > > The second translation offered is even more confusing. What do > > you > > > > mean > > > > > by having amshakas in each other's rasi? Both the rasis have > > many > > > > common > > > > > amshas. > > > > > > > > > > Perhaps my own understanding of the English language is > > deficient > > > > as I > > > > > fail to understand what you are trying to say. Do you mean that > > > > the sage > > > > > wanted to convey that even if the grahas occupy any amsha other > > > > than > > > > > Simha or Karka in Karka or Simha rasi the yoga comes through. > > If > > > > that > > > > > was the case why would he talk about those amshas at all? I do > > not > > > > think > > > > > the sage was as liberal with words as we of this generation > > are. > > > > > > > > > > Take care, > > > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji > > > > > > > > > > > > Let us see the 2 shlokas - > > > > > > > > > > > > Relevant part from shloka 7 > > > > > > > > > > > > ''Chandre Karkata VrischikamshaKA gathe Papairyuthe - > > Guhyaruk'' > > > > > > Here it means Chandra conjunct a malefic is having amshaka in > > > > > > Karakataka or Vrishchika Rashi.This has been explained > > clearly in > > > > > > the text.Conjuctions/Aspects/Bhavas always w.r to 30 degree > > > > sectors. > > > > > > (Eg Asitha Kujayor shloka).Satish ji's interpretation is > > > > > > similar.Chandra is conjunct a malefic and has amshaKA in > > > > Keeta/Jala > > > > > > rashis,resulting in Guhya Roga. > > > > > > > > > > > > Relevant part from shloka 8 > > > > > > > > > > > > ''Shoshee Paraspara GrihamshaKAyo.....'' - Either in mutual > > Rashi > > > > > > (Griha) or having Amshakas in those Rashis. > > > > > > ''Kshethre Thadhava Yuga Padeva'' - Surya and Chandra > > Together in > > > > > > Karka or Simha Rashis. > > > > > > > > > > > > Thus these two shlokas are not an example for vargamshas > > being > > > > > > interpreted as a ''chakra'' nor having aspect from such a > > > > > > disposition.If you say they are seen in isolation then > > yes,they > > > > are > > > > > > seen but again as having amshaka in a Rashi. > > > > > > > > > > > > Dashadhyayi says -Balayogath Phalam Amshakarkshayo'' - > > Explained > > > > as > > > > > > one has to compare the strength between Rashi and Amshaka > > Rashi > > > > > > while predicting results for a Graha.In the above case too we > > > > have > > > > > > to do so. > > > > > > > > > > > > Also answering another question of yours - Dashadhyayi says - > > > > Mishra > > > > > > phala if Graha has exalted Rashi but amshaka in rashi of > > > > > > debilitation and vice versa.Also one has to see other > > > > Vargasthithi > > > > > > before arriving at conclusions. > > > > > > > > > > > > NB:I request views of Shri Sanjay Rath on the shlokas 7 & 8 > > which > > > > > > Chandrashekhar ji has quoted.His students may kindly pass on. > > > > > > > > > > > > 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 now look forward to your giving me the specific shloka where the sage says that it is to be seen in Rasi chakra only. I am aware of how Vargottam lagna or graha is to be seen. My question is that if we really map amsha back to rasi, claiming an inviolate rasi amsha sambandha, would then it not imply Vargottam rasi or lagna? I have also asked why the bhava to which Karakamsha is carried back to is not called " Karakamsha yukta " as is the practice when so mapping back bhava in navamsha tulya rasi application? Chandrashekhar. vijayadas_pradeep wrote: > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji > > I have given my views in naother mail.They are happening within the > same Rashi chakra,similar to sukshma as well as sthula is happening > within the same organ within human body. > > Since we are mapping them out individually for easiness,we have to > map them back. > > Regarding Karakamsha i will give you specific shloka where sage is > mentioning Rashi. > > Vargottama navamsha points to a planet or our Lagna having amsha in > a rashi where it is placed.Karka navamsha can fall in Aries as well > as Cancer.Planet in 4th navamsha as well as in the 1st navamsha in > Cancer relates back to Karka.But the one in Aries will not have > Vargottama. > > I respect your views and would like to say that,our discussion has > given others a background on the whole scenario.This helps them to > frame their own views.I am not saying i am right or i am wrong.The > debate was really fruitful. > > Respect > Pradeep > Respect > Pradeep > > > <%40>, Chandrashekhar > <chandrashekhar46 wrote: > > > > Dear Pradeep, > > > > If Varga arrangement can not be viewed as a chart why draw it in > that > > manner at all, is something one should seriously think about. I > have > > never understood how Karakamsha is projected to mean Rasi > indicated by > > Karakamsha in Rasi chart. But then I am too set in my ways to > understand > > the modern logic and so when a sage says look at 2nd from > Karakamsha I > > look at 2nd from the Amsha occupied by the Atmakaraka and not the > Rasi > > which is equivalent to the Amsha occupied by karaka. > > > > I am sure there must be some ancient Sanskrit grammar that equates > Amsha > > to rasi, but I have never had access to such a grammar. > > > > As there is no reason to continue the discussion as no explanation > of > > why occupation of only amshas that give yoga according to the > sages if > > they must necessarily be mapped back to their own rasi, even if > the > > sages do not say that, and assumption of such amshas being in > identical > > rasis can only mean they are vargottama navamshas and why the > sages > > should not call them vargottam in the first place, is not > forthcoming. > > > > > > Chandrashekhar. > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote: > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji > > > > > > > So you accept that Amshas can give results even independent of > > > >mapping > to rasi. If this is right why can there never be a > case > > > >when the sages ask to look aspects for certain specific yogas, > > > >escapes me. More so when the learned like Bhattotpala and > Sitaram > > > >Jha say so. > > > > > > The context was - Can varga arrangements be considered as > > > a ''chart'' with aspects,bhava etc.The view from my side was > Amshas > > > are studied along with Rashi,bhavas -aspects in rashi chakra - > Not in > > > isolation.Now you are bringing in something which no one has ever > > > disputed.I had even given shlokas talking about comparing > strength > > > between rashi placement and amshaka rashi. > > > > > > You are saying Bhatolpala said so - But as Bhatolpala did not > write > > > in english - i don't know what he inteneded.For eg:The examples > > > provided by you gave an impressionto you like that ,though not > so in > > > reality. > > > Eg - Hora drishti/chandradrekkanadhipathi drishti/bandhukshethra > > > graha drishti shlokas were treated by you as varga charts. > > > For me ,i respect your views but -the quoted shlokas are not able > > > to prove anything about aspects in rashi chakra or Bhavas > thereof - > > > The main topic behind our debate. > > > > > > I have never said ,i will accept only dashadhyayi.Dashadhyayi(800 > > > years old) is demonstrating,how to read amshas while no other > text > > > is explaining it with supportive shlokas from > > > Garga/Jeevasharama/Shruthakeerthi etc.You may kindly give > > > bhatolpalas sanskrit shloka ,where he is saying so > (Chakras/Aspects). > > > > > > 1) To which rasi will you map them back to when Sun and Moon > occupy > > > Simha and Karka navamsha but not Karka and Simha rasis. > > > > > > As per Rashi tulya etc - any of the 9 Aries navamsha sectors > from - > > > Ta/Ge/Le/Vi/Li/Sa/Ca/Ku- can map back to one single Aries Rashi. > > > > > > Transit results,(Say Jupiter is transiting janma navamshaka > rashi) - > > > can be seen from a single Rashi. > > > > > > Out of 144 dwadashamshas, moon can occuppy the same dwadshamsha > in > > > 12 possible ways in 12 Rashis.How do we see transit results by > > > mapping it back to a single ashi. > > > > > > Similarly Karka Navamsha, no matter from where we derive,has to > come > > > back to one single Karka Rashi. > > > > > > Pls consider this only as my learning exercise. > > > > > > Respect > > > Pradeep > > > > <%40> > > > <%40>, Chandrashekhar > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Dear Pradeep, > > > > > > > > I think the discussions have already been derailed by > Sreenadh's > > > > obnoxious mail. I would like to point out one inconsistency in > > > your > > > > argument below. > > > > > > > > You said " Why did Varahamihira use GRIHA+aMSHAKAYO - For me > it is > > > > crystal clear - It points to mutual exchange of Surya or > chandra > > > in each > > > > others Rashi or Amsha. " > > > > > > > > So you accept that Amshas can give results even independent of > > > mapping > > > > to rasi. If this is right why can there never be a case when > the > > > sages > > > > ask to look aspects for certain specific yogas, escapes me. > More > > > so when > > > > the learned like Bhattotpala and Sitaram Jha say so. > > > > > > > > I think you have made up your mind that nothing outside > > > dashaadhyaayi is > > > > acceptable in astrology, and will therefore like to close this > > > endless > > > > discussion after only briefest of comments. > > > > > > > > You said in the course of the long argument that amshas are to > be > > > seen > > > > in or mapped back to rasi charts. Most of the rasis have Karka > and > > > Simha > > > > Amshas. I have two questions in this regards. > > > > > > > > 1) To which rasi will you map them back to when Sun and Moon > > > occupy > > > > Simha and Karka navamsha but not Karka and Simha rasis. > > > > 2) Having so mapped them back to say a rasi (apparently the > rasi > > > > occupied by them) in the 11th and the 12 th and in the 4th and > the > > > 10th, > > > > do you think the results will be same for say Karka lagna? > > > > > > > > If you think the sages whom you quoted meant that the results > of > > > the > > > > hypothetical positions suggested will be identical after > > > interpretation > > > > of such a mapping, it is high time I begin learning astrology > > > again. > > > > > > > > Take care, > > > > Chandrashekhar. > > > > > > > > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji > > > > > > > > > > I have never said Bhatolpala or Sitaram jha is wrong.For > that i > > > have > > > > > to know what Bhatolpala has said.If you provide the sanskrit > > > shloka > > > > > then one can check.I cannot comment on english translations > of > > > > > Sanskrit shlokas. > > > > > > > > > > There are 2 shlokas - > > > > > > > > > > 1)''Chandre Karkata VrischikamshaKA gathe Papairyuthe - > Guhyaruk'' > > > > > Here you can see - Chandra is joining(Yuthe) Papa and having > > > amshaka > > > > > in Keeta rashis.Thus here there is no ambiguity.Chandra > should > > > have > > > > > amshaka either in Karkataka Rashi or Vrishcika Rashi.It can > be > > > > > placed in Aries 4th amsha along with Saturn in Aries, to > satisfy > > > > > this condition. > > > > > > > > > > 2)''Shoshee Paraspara GrihamshaKAyo.....'' - Either in mutual > > > Rashi > > > > > (Griha) or having Amshakas in those Rashis. > > > > > In this case,sage is clearly mentioning about Paraspara > > > > > GRIHA+AMSHAKA+YO.Thus there is no ambiguity.I do not think > > > > > Bhatolpala will translate this as asmha alone. > > > > > Now Author dashadhyayi - gives another supporting quote from > > > Gargee - > > > > > Ithyathra Gargee Vachanam - Paraspara GRIHE yathau Yathi Vapi > > > > > TadAMSHAgau Bhavethamarka Sheethamshu.First of all this > shloka is > > > > > crystal clear to someone who can understand a bit of > > > > > sanskrit.Secondly -Dashadhyayi kara gives such an > > > > > explanation.Thirdly he gives views of Gargi. > > > > > > > > > > If you cannot trust all these great men - Let us go by common > > > sense > > > > > and logic.Varahamihira will never use words if not > necessary - > > > Let > > > > > us take some examples - > > > > > 1)Chandre VrischikamshaKA gathe'' -This is the shloka > immediately > > > > > preceding our shloka.Here sage wants to mention about amsha > so he > > > > > did not use Vrischika+Griha+Amshaka gathe. > > > > > > > > > > 2)Shloka 9 chapter 22 -'' Anyonyamshagayo'' -Sage did not say > > > > > AnyonyaGRIHA+AMSHAGAYO'' > > > > > > > > > > 3)''Driksamstha Vasitha Vasitha Sithou Parasparamshe'' -Sage > did > > > not > > > > > say Paraspara+Griha+Amshe'' > > > > > > > > > > Why did Varahamihira use GRIHA+aMSHAKAYO - For me it is > crystal > > > > > clear - It points to mutual exchange of Surya or chandra in > each > > > > > others Rashi or Amsha.Placement in a Rashi or having amshaka > in a > > > > > rashi sometimes gives identicak results.There are umpteen > such > > > > > examples.One example is Chandra aspected by various planets > when > > > > > Chandra is in the Raashi of Mesha etc or Chandra having > > > dwadshamsha > > > > > there. > > > > > > > > > > I hope these many shlokas are sufficient. > > > > > > > > > > Respect > > > > > Pradeep > > > > > > > > > > > <%40> > > > <%40> > > > > > <%40>, Chandrashekhar > > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Pradeep, > > > > > > > > > > > > Since you think that both Bhattotpala and Sitaram Jha ( who > > > also > > > > > > commented on Bhattotpala's commentary of Brihatjataka) were > > > wrong > > > > > in > > > > > > their translation of the shlokas concerned, I can not > comment > > > on > > > > > the > > > > > > translations offered by you. I fail to understand how Karka > > > > > amshaka as > > > > > > you prefer to call it, irrespective of rasi occupied by by > > > > > Chandra, is > > > > > > capable of giving results similar to being in Karka rasi > if the > > > > > bhavas > > > > > > in Navamsha are not to be considered as suggested by you. I > > > > > remember you > > > > > > need all amshas to be mapped back to the respective rasi > > > occupied. > > > > > In > > > > > > the instant case that condition is not required and the > arc of > > > 3 > > > > > degrees > > > > > > 20 minutes in any 30 degree rasi is enough to give the > results. > > > > > > > > > > > > The second translation offered is even more confusing. > What do > > > you > > > > > mean > > > > > > by having amshakas in each other's rasi? Both the rasis > have > > > many > > > > > common > > > > > > amshas. > > > > > > > > > > > > Perhaps my own understanding of the English language is > > > deficient > > > > > as I > > > > > > fail to understand what you are trying to say. Do you mean > that > > > > > the sage > > > > > > wanted to convey that even if the grahas occupy any amsha > other > > > > > than > > > > > > Simha or Karka in Karka or Simha rasi the yoga comes > through. > > > If > > > > > that > > > > > > was the case why would he talk about those amshas at all? > I do > > > not > > > > > think > > > > > > the sage was as liberal with words as we of this generation > > > are. > > > > > > > > > > > > Take care, > > > > > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Let us see the 2 shlokas - > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Relevant part from shloka 7 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ''Chandre Karkata VrischikamshaKA gathe Papairyuthe - > > > Guhyaruk'' > > > > > > > Here it means Chandra conjunct a malefic is having > amshaka in > > > > > > > Karakataka or Vrishchika Rashi.This has been explained > > > clearly in > > > > > > > the text.Conjuctions/Aspects/Bhavas always w.r to 30 > degree > > > > > sectors. > > > > > > > (Eg Asitha Kujayor shloka).Satish ji's interpretation is > > > > > > > similar.Chandra is conjunct a malefic and has amshaKA in > > > > > Keeta/Jala > > > > > > > rashis,resulting in Guhya Roga. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Relevant part from shloka 8 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ''Shoshee Paraspara GrihamshaKAyo.....'' - Either in > mutual > > > Rashi > > > > > > > (Griha) or having Amshakas in those Rashis. > > > > > > > ''Kshethre Thadhava Yuga Padeva'' - Surya and Chandra > > > Together in > > > > > > > Karka or Simha Rashis. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thus these two shlokas are not an example for vargamshas > > > being > > > > > > > interpreted as a ''chakra'' nor having aspect from such a > > > > > > > disposition.If you say they are seen in isolation then > > > yes,they > > > > > are > > > > > > > seen but again as having amshaka in a Rashi. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dashadhyayi says -Balayogath Phalam Amshakarkshayo'' - > > > Explained > > > > > as > > > > > > > one has to compare the strength between Rashi and Amshaka > > > Rashi > > > > > > > while predicting results for a Graha.In the above case > too we > > > > > have > > > > > > > to do so. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Also answering another question of yours - Dashadhyayi > says - > > > > > Mishra > > > > > > > phala if Graha has exalted Rashi but amshaka in rashi of > > > > > > > debilitation and vice versa.Also one has to see other > > > > > Vargasthithi > > > > > > > before arriving at conclusions. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > NB:I request views of Shri Sanjay Rath on the shlokas 7 > & 8 > > > which > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar ji has quoted.His students may kindly > pass on. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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.