Varge as Plural - Similar Example - Chandrashekhar ji

[Guest guest]

Dear Chandrashekhar ji

 

Dashadhayayi is not a classic and my view was it is more than a mere

commentary as it has clear explanations,while thinking from a

students perspective.

 

As you know,inspite of having all those commentaries,you were having

a view of trimshamsha chakra,which is a concern for me.Similarly

there were couple of other shlokas that you have quoted as examples.

 

Thus i feel Bhatotpala might have been misunderstood(inadvertently)

by some or it can be your view about those translations.Bhatotpala

cannot be wrong is my stron conviction.

 

The sanskrit shlokas from dashadhyayi were quoted by me,for example

cases of kemadruma,which clearly explains leaving no ambiguity.I

cannot think jeevasharma,Gargi,Sruthakeerthi etc will make the same

mistake.

 

Thus i was talking about Sanskrit explanations and not

malayalam.Sanskrit to Malayalam translation is pretty straight

forward due to many similarities.

 

I will give all my views with more clarity.

 

Respect

Pradeep

 

, Chandrashekhar

<chandrashekhar46 wrote:

>

> Dear Pradeep,

>

> If you read your previous mails, you will find you questioning the

> translation of Sitaram Jha and even the commentary of Bhattotpala.

>

> If you think Dahshaadhyaayi is an independent astrology classic

which is

> not a commentary, you are free to think that. I was talking about

the

> Sanskrit version of Bhattotpala and Sitaram Jha's Sanskrit and

Hindi

> commentary on it that you questioned. I fail to understand why only

> Malayalam commentary/translation of Sanskrit (original work if you

like)

> is acceptable and not Hindi or Sanskrit.

>

> But then you may have some more information about Dashaadhyaayi's

being

> an original work that I do not possess. I seem to remember even

the

> Prashna Marga whose authority you quote to certify Dashaadhyaayi to

be

> the only text worthy of praise (or words to that effect) tells that

> Brihat jataka is difficult to comprehend by even intelligent

persons and

> yet with the help of Commentaries of Bhattotpala and others it is

> possible to understand the book at shloka 28 part one of that

classic.

> So unlike what is being portrayed, Prashna Marga did not only talk

about

> Dashaaadhyaayi as the only interpretation of Brihat jataka.

>

>

> Chandrashekhar.

>

> vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> >

> > For me knowledge has no barriers like Region or Religion.

> >

> > I do not think i have said Bhatolpala is wrong.And i do not think

> > Bhatolpapala can be wrong.On the other hand the sanskrit english

> > trasnlators of bhatolpala might have committed a mistake.

> >

> > Dashadhayi is not a mere commentary,it gives explanation and no

one

> > can misinterpret.

> >

> > Ofcourse the ones havign PHD and all are learned.No doubt.But we

> > cannot equate them with the author of Dashadhayayi.

> >

> > Bhatolpala and Dashadhyayi may be equated.But translation of

> > Bhatolpala into english and dashadhyayi may not be compared.It is

my

> > view and you can very well disagree.

> >

> > Respect

> > Pradeep

> > , Chandrashekhar

> > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> >

> >> Dear Pradeep,

> >>

> >> Have I said I was not happy with Dashaadhyaayi? If you remember

our

> >>

> > old

> >

> >> correspondence, I think it was I who mentioned that Prashna

Marga

> >>

> > talks

> >

> >> highly about Dashaadhyaayi. My point is about only accepting the

> >> interpretation of Dashaadhyaayi and not others. If you remember

you

> >> rejected the commentary of Bhattotpala who is considered amongst

> >>

> > the few

> >

> >> top and contemporary commentators on Brihat jataka along with

Rudra

> >> Bhatt and also that of Sitaram Jha a Sanskrit scholar and

professor

> >>

> > of

> >

> >> astrology with Banaras Hindu University and have always been

> >>

> > declaring

> >

> >> that only what is said in Dashaadhyaayi, to the exclusion of all

> >>

> > other

> >

> >> classics that are as much or more respected, is right. My

comments

> >>

> > are

> >

> >> on that part of your arguments and not on Dashaadhyaayi per-se.

> >>

> >> Saravali translation that I have with me does talk about mutual

> >>

> > aspect

> >

> >> of Shukra and Shani from their exchanged Navamshas, so again

this

> >> insistence of accepting only your translation is puzzling. This

is

> >>

> > from

> >

> >> the hindi " Kantimati " commentary of Saravali by Dr. Muralidhar

> >> Chaturvedi who was Jyotishacharya and Vidyaavaridhi (Ph.D.). By

the

> >>

> > way

> >

> >> Saravali was written by Kalyanvarma who is said to have hailed

from

> >> Bundelkhand in Hindi heartland.

> >>

> >> Chandrashekhar.

> >>

> >>

> >>

> >> vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> >>

> >>> Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> >>>

> >>> Kindly read what was the opinion of dashadhyayi before you may

> >>> criticize the valuable text.After mentioning the whe shloka as

> >>> one,the author said Thatha cha Saravalyam.

> >>>

> >>> Now as both of us understand cha as ''and'',does it mean the

whole

> >>> shloka is one or are they two,especially as cha comes

> >>> after ''shaukre -belonging to shukra''.

> >>>

> >>> As you were not happy with Dashadhyayi,there were views from

jeeva

> >>> sharma,sruthakeerthi,Garga(giantly figures).Now Saravli has been

> >>> quoted.

> >>>

> >>> Respect

> >>> Pradeep

> >>>

> >>>

> >>> <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> >>> <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> >>>

> >>>> Dear Pradeep,

> >>>>

> >>>> If you think " ca " does not mean AND, in Sanskrit then there

may

> >>>>

> > not

> >

> >>> be

> >>>

> >>>> any point in discussing this any further. And if translations

of

> >>>>

> >>> all

> >>>

> >>>> other learned scholars are to be rejected in favour of

> >>>>

> >>> Dashaadhyaayi,

> >>>

> >>>> then there is no use discussing what Parashara said too as

> >>>>

> >>> Dashaadhyaayi

> >>>

> >>>> is a commentary on Brihat jataka.

> >>>>

> >>>> Personally, I do not think that only Dashaadhyaayi encompasses

> >>>>

> > all

> >

> >>> the

> >>>

> >>>> vedic astrological knowledge though it is one amongst the

> >>>>

> > respected

> >

> >>> texts.

> >>>

> >>>> Chandrashekhar.

> >>>>

> >>>> vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> >>>>

> >>>>> Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> >>>>>

> >>>>> If you remember our first discussion,which is present in the

> >>>>> archives,you were only mentioning about shukra and saturn in

> >>>>> paraspara amsha and aspecting each other.You had added that

> >>>>>

> > these

> >

> >>> are

> >>>

> >>>>> aspects in Trimshamsha chakra.

> >>>>>

> >>>>> I had then quoted the second line which points to Lagna being

> >>>>>

> >>> that of

> >>>

> >>>>> Shukra and its navamsha in ghata rashi.

> >>>>>

> >>>>> For which your reply was we are looking into different texts.

> >>>>>

> >>>>> You have only quoted the 2nd line from Saravali.

> >>>>>

> >>>>> The full shloka in Saravali is as follows -

> >>>>> Shukra Sithau yadi paraspara bhaga samsthau

> >>>>> shaukre cha drishti pathagavudaye ghatamshe

> >>>>>

> >>>>> Thus the first line does not contain any aspect mentioned.How

> >>>>>

> > can

> >

> >>> we

> >>>

> >>>>> say that the first line is stand alone.Do you say if Shukra

> >>>>>

> > and

> >

> >>>>> Saturn are in each others amsha a lady will behave like this.

> >>>>> The second line makes it complete.The lagna should be that of

> >>>>> shukra,saturn and venus should aspect each other,and lagnamsha

> >>>>>

> >>> should

> >>>

> >>>>> fall in Ghatamsha.

> >>>>>

> >>>>> Thus Dashadhyayi kara is crystal clear on what Saravali is

> >>>>> saying.Atleast for this shloka i feel there is no ambiguity

> >>>>>

> >>> needed.

> >>>

> >>>>> Respect

> >>>>> Pradeep

> >>>>>

> >>>>> Chandrashekhar <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> >>>>>

> >>>>>> Dear Pradeep,

> >>>>>>

> >>>>>> If Dashaadhyaayi thinks Saravali is a standard text to rely

> >>>>>>

> >>> upon (

> >>>

> >>>>> as

> >>>>>

> >>>>>> you have quoted a reference therein quoting Saravali to

> >>>>>>

> > support

> >

> >>>>> some

> >>>>>

> >>>>>> interpretation) why say that other concepts in Saravali are

> >>>>>>

> >>> wrong?

> >>>

> >>>>>> Saravali says " Shaukre ca drishtipathagaavudaye ghataamshe "

> >>>>>>

> > etc.

> >

> >>>>>> indicating the necessity of exchange of amshas and mutual

> >>>>>>

> > aspect

> >

> >>>>> between

> >>>>>

> >>>>>> Shukra and Shani as concurrent condition for the first yoga

> >>>>>>

> > to

> >

> >>>>> fructify.

> >>>>>

> >>>>>> And then goes on to say that if for a lagna having rasi of

> >>>>>>

> >>> Shukra

> >>>

> >>>>> and

> >>>>>

> >>>>>> navamsha of Shani similar results would ensue. GhataaMshe

> >>>>>>

> > has

> >

> >>> been

> >>>

> >>>>>> interpreted as the amsha of Shani and not merely amsha of

> >>>>>>

> >>> Kumbha by

> >>>

> >>>>> many

> >>>>>

> >>>>>> translators.

> >>>>>>

> >>>>>> I can not comment on the interpretation of Dashaadhyaayikar

> >>>>>>

> > of

> >

> >>> the

> >>>

> >>>>>> shloka but the shloka from Brihat Jataka that I have also

> >>>>>>

> > says

> >

> >>>>>> " driksamsthaavasitasito parasparaamshe shoke vaa yadi ghata

> >>>>>> raashisambhavoMshaH. " followed by the next line that I did

> >>>>>>

> > not

> >

> >>> find

> >>>

> >>>>>> necessary to quote as it does not talk about the yoga but

> >>>>>>

> > only

> >

> >>> the

> >>>

> >>>>>> results, which you have already quoted and I felt may not be

> >>>>>>

> >>>>> necessary

> >>>>>

> >>>>>> to post on line.

> >>>>>>

> >>>>>> That there are two distinct yogas is also not new to

> >>>>>>

> >>> translators of

> >>>

> >>>>>> Brihat jataka. Since you accept that the first line does say

> >>>>>>

> >>> about

> >>>

> >>>>>> occupation of each others amsha AND aspect on each other is

> >>>>>>

> >>> indeed

> >>>

> >>>>>> covered in the first line, the reluctance to accept aspects

> >>>>>>

> > in

> >

> >>>>> specific

> >>>>>

> >>>>>> cases is something that I am not able to understand.

> >>>>>>

> >>>>>> Chandrashekhar.

> >>>>>>

> >>>>>>

> >>>>>>

> >>>>>>

> >>>>>>

> >>>>>> vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> >>>>>>

> >>>>>>> Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> >>>>>>>

> >>>>>>> I can clearly understand your position.Especially as you

> >>>>>>>

> > have

> >

> >>>>>>> said,the texts that we are referring to are different.Here

> >>>>>>>

> >>> comes

> >>>

> >>>>> the

> >>>>>

> >>>>>>> importance of Dashadhyayi.After my explanation you can

> >>>>>>>

> > also

> >

> >>> see

> >>>

> >>>>> that

> >>>>>

> >>>>>>> it is not only dashadhyayi ,but Saravali as well is

> >>>>>>>

> > having the

> >

> >>>>> same

> >>>>>

> >>>>>>> opinion on the shloka explained below.

> >>>>>>>

> >>>>>>> As i have mentioned yesterday,dashadhyayi is not covering

> >>>>>>>

> >>> just the

> >>>

> >>>>>>> first 10 chapters as the name suggests.For example let me

> >>>>>>>

> >>> take a

> >>>

> >>>>>>> chapter towards the end ,chapter 22-Sthree Jataka Adhyaya.

> >>>>>>>

> >>>>>>> Thalakkulathu Govinda Bhattathiri has given

> >>>>>>>

> >>> interpretations,for

> >>>

> >>>>> all

> >>>>>

> >>>>>>> the shlokas from 1 through 16,except shloka 13, while

> >>>>>>>

> >>> interpreting

> >>>

> >>>>>>> chapters 1 through 10. Shloka 13 as you can see is pretty

> >>>>>>>

> >>> straight

> >>>

> >>>>>>> forward.

> >>>>>>>

> >>>>>>> Now let us take the shloka which as per you is referring

> >>>>>>> to ''Trimshamsha Chakra'' with aspects therein.Firstly the

> >>>>>>>

> >>> results

> >>>

> >>>>>>> for planets being placed in rashis belonging to Mesha

> >>>>>>>

> >>> onwards,and

> >>>

> >>>>>>> within that Trimshamshas belonging to Mars onwards is

> >>>>>>>

> >>> explained

> >>>

> >>>>> and

> >>>>>

> >>>>>>> ends by shloka 6.

> >>>>>>>

> >>>>>>> Now let us take

> >>>>>>>

> >>>>>>> ''Driksamstha VasithaSithau Parasparamshe

> >>>>>>> Shaukre Va yadi Ghata Rashi Sambhavomsha''

> >>>>>>> Next 2 lines explains the result.

> >>>>>>>

> >>>>>>> As per you,there is only a reference regarding Venus and

> >>>>>>>

> >>> Saturn

> >>>

> >>>>>>> aspecting each other and also in each others Amsha.This is

> >>>>>>>

> >>> covered

> >>>

> >>>>>>> in the first line.My worry is where has the second line

> >>>>>>>

> > gone

> >

> >>> in

> >>>

> >>>>> the

> >>>>>

> >>>>>>> text that you are having.Either it was not interpreted or

> >>>>>>>

> > it

> >

> >>> was

> >>>

> >>>>>>> inadvertently got missed out from printing.

> >>>>>>>

> >>>>>>> Now Dashadhyayi says -

> >>>>>>>

> >>>>>>> Driksamsthau ithyadi Yoga dvayam - Two Yogas.First one is

> >>>>>>> corresponding to the first line as we have seen.

> >>>>>>>

> >>>>>>> Shaukre Rashau Yadi Kumbhamshe Udethi ..Thatha

> >>>>>>>

> > dvitheeyam -

> >

> >>> the

> >>>

> >>>>>>> second.Meaning ,The Ascendant should be either Tula or

> >>>>>>>

> >>> Vrishabha

> >>>

> >>>>> and

> >>>>>

> >>>>>>> it should have Kumbhamsha(Kumbha is Ghata - Ghata Rashi

> >>>>>>> Sambhavomsha).

> >>>>>>>

> >>>>>>> Now the author says, as per some these two can be taken

> >>>>>>>

> > as one

> >

> >>>>> yoga

> >>>>>

> >>>>>>> as well(Saravali too says so).

> >>>>>>>

> >>>>>>> Parasparamshagatha Vasitha Sithou Paraspara Drishtau

> >>>>>>>

> > Shaukre

> >

> >>>>>>> Rashavudayathi Kumbhamshakashcha Bhavathi Yadee - then the

> >>>>>>> result.And the author says -T hatha Cha Saravalyam.And

> >>>>>>>

> > quotes

> >

> >>>>>>> corresponding shloka from Saravali,where again the said

> >>>>>>>

> > line

> >

> >>> is

> >>>

> >>>>>>> present(sanskrit).Thus it says - For a Lady to have such a

> >>>>>>>

> >>> strong

> >>>

> >>>>>>> sexual desire - Purusha Veshadhari(One dressign up as a

> >>>>>>>

> > man -

> >

> >>> thus

> >>>

> >>>>>>> lesbian),her ascendant should belong to Venus and the

> >>>>>>>

> > amsha

> >

> >>> of her

> >>>

> >>>>>>> ascendant should fall in Kumbha Rashi,and in her chart

> >>>>>>>

> > Saturn

> >

> >>> and

> >>>

> >>>>>>> Venus should aspect each other and also have exchange of

> >>>>>>>

> >>> amshas.

> >>>

> >>>>>>> Thus you see,in either case there is a line which is

> >>>>>>>

> > missing

> >

> >>> in

> >>>

> >>>>> your

> >>>>>

> >>>>>>> book,which helps us to understand that it is not a varga

> >>>>>>>

> >>> chakra.I

> >>>

> >>>>>>> dont know how it happened.

> >>>>>>>

> >>>>>>> Thus if Dashadhyayi was not there,then i would have also

> >>>>>>>

> > not

> >

> >>> got

> >>>

> >>>>> any

> >>>>>

> >>>>>>> opportunity to understand this in such detail.This is the

> >>>>>>>

> >>> beauty

> >>>

> >>>>> of

> >>>>>

> >>>>>>> this text and as you know without any value ParashnaMarga

> >>>>>>>

> >>> will not

> >>>

> >>>>>>> praise it with such a high regard.The rest of the text is

> >>>>>>>

> >>> great

> >>>

> >>>>> and

> >>>>>

> >>>>>>> explains every concept with authority,quoting many

> >>>>>>>

> > sources.

> >

> >>>>>>> I consider you with great regard(Gurusthana) and holds

> >>>>>>>

> > respect

> >

> >>>>>>> towards your views and analysis.You may kindly understand

> >>>>>>>

> >>> that,i

> >>>

> >>>>>>> will not misquote and misrepresent,especially when the

> >>>>>>>

> >>> subject is

> >>>

> >>>>>>> Jyotish.If some others in this list is having

> >>>>>>>

> > mistrust,they

> >

> >>> should

> >>>

> >>>>>>> understand that i am not the only keralite living in this

> >>>>>>>

> >>> universe

> >>>

> >>>>>>> and they can seek help from others to see if i am

> >>>>>>>

> > cheating.I

> >

> >>> have

> >>>

> >>>>> no

> >>>>>

> >>>>>>> hatred towards their words.If it brings happiness to them

> >>>>>>>

> > let

> >

> >>> them

> >>>

> >>>>>>> continue with false allegations.

> >>>>>>>

> >>>>>>> I will prepare the paper and then would request your good

> >>>>>>>

> >>> self to

> >>>

> >>>>>>> review.I am so thankful that you have tested me with tough

> >>>>>>>

> >>>>> questions

> >>>>>

> >>>>>>> and logic,which has helped me to learn more.

> >>>>>>>

> >>>>>>> Respect

> >>>>>>> Pradeep

> >>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>

> >>> <%40>

> >>>

> >>>>> <%40>

> >>>>>

> >>>>>>> <%

> >>>>>>>

> > 40>, " vijayadas_pradeep "

> >

> >>>>>>> <vijayadas_pradeep@> wrote:

> >>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>> Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> >>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>> Purna drishte Purna Yogam Ardha Drishte ardhameva cha

> >>>>>>>> Pada drishte Padayogamiti gyeyam kramat phalam.

> >>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>> Is mentioned and hence the aspects are not about Rashi

> >>>>>>>>

> >>> drishti.

> >>>

> >>>>>>>> Now as i have mentioned in the past,though the name is

> >>>>>>>> dashadhyayi,the author covers shlokas,from most of the

> >>>>>>>>

> >>> chapters

> >>>

> >>>>> as

> >>>>>

> >>>>>>>> and when he finds some interrelationship or link.This i

> >>>>>>>>

> >>> consider

> >>>

> >>>>>>> as a

> >>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>> real blessing.Now how amshakas are interpreted,has been

> >>>>>>>> demonstrated ,for numerous contexts,and thus forming a

> >>>>>>>>

> >>> guideline

> >>>

> >>>>>>> for

> >>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>> other shloka interpretations.

> >>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>> I will see the shlokas,and will write back.

> >>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>> Respect

> >>>>>>>> Pradeep

> >>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>

> >>> <%40>

> >>>

> >>>>> <%40>

> >>>>>

> >>>>>>> <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> >>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>> <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> >>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>> Dear Pradeep,

> >>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>> Transits are to be seen no doubt from the rasis

> >>>>>>>>>

> >>> synonymous to

> >>>

> >>>>>>> the

> >>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>> navamsha rasis, but when it is sphuta it is of the

> >>>>>>>>>

> >>> navamshesha

> >>>

> >>>>>>> and

> >>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>> not

> >>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>> the rasis. There is a difference between the two.

> >>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>> I have already said I do not consider aspects in D-

> >>>>>>>>>

> > charts,

> >

> >>>>>>> unless

> >>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>> specifically mentioned in some yogas, and also that

> >>>>>>>>>

> >>> barring

> >>>

> >>>>>>>> navamsha

> >>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>> charts, in other varga charts I look at rashi aspects.

> >>>>>>>>>

> >>> That

> >>>

> >>>>> does

> >>>>>

> >>>>>>>> not

> >>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>> mean I should close my eyes to what is written in

> >>>>>>>>>

> > other

> >

> >>>>>>> respected

> >>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>> texts.

> >>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>> That only means I look at charts from a different

> >>>>>>>>>

> > angle.

> >

> >>>>>>>>> There is nothing in the lagna shadvargake shloka to

> >>>>>>>>>

> >>> indicate

> >>>

> >>>>>>> graded

> >>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>> aspects and so it does not rule out rashi drishti at

> >>>>>>>>>

> > all.

> >

> >>> Ans

> >>>

> >>>>>>> since

> >>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>> you

> >>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>> have quoted both Parashara and Jaimini you should know

> >>>>>>>>>

> >>> that

> >>>

> >>>>>>> rashi

> >>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>> drishtis are valid in Parashara too and exclusively

> >>>>>>>>>

> > so in

> >

> >>>>>>> Jaimini.

> >>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>> Your translation and mine of the shlokas differ and

> >>>>>>>>>

> > that

> >

> >>> is

> >>>

> >>>>> why

> >>>>>

> >>>>>>>> there is

> >>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>> no agreement. If you expect Dashaadhyaayi to give

> >>>>>>>>>

> >>> divisional

> >>>

> >>>>>>> charts

> >>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>> and

> >>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>> their interpretations, that is not possible as Varaha

> >>>>>>>>>

> >>> Mihira

> >>>

> >>>>> on

> >>>>>

> >>>>>>>> whose

> >>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>> work it is only a commentary does not speak of it and

> >>>>>>>>>

> > it

> >

> >>> is

> >>>

> >>>>>>>> commentary

> >>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>> on only 10 of the 18 adhayaayas of Brihat jataka. If

> >>>>>>>>>

> > you

> >

> >>> read

> >>>

> >>>>>>>> Brihat

> >>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>> jataka carefully, you will see reference o aspects in

> >>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>> Trimshamsha

> >>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>> there.

> >>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>> Since you have many times claimed superiority of

> >>>>>>>>>

> >>> Dashaadhyaayi

> >>>

> >>>>>>> over

> >>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>> many

> >>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>> of the more ancient and respected classics, I find it

> >>>>>>>>>

> >>> strange

> >>>

> >>>>> as

> >>>>>

> >>>>>>> to

> >>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>> why

> >>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>> you do not want to accept what is said in the original

> >>>>>>>>>

> >>> text on

> >>>

> >>>>>>>> which

> >>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>> Dashaadhyaayi is only a commentary and that too on 10

> >>>>>>>>>

> >>>>> adhyaayas

> >>>>>

> >>>>>>> as

> >>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>> the

> >>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>> name suggests (that does not, of course, make it any

> >>>>>>>>>

> > less

> >

> >>>>>>>> respectable).

> >>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>> There are many references to planets being placed in a

> >>>>>>>>>

> >>>>> navamsha,

> >>>>>

> >>>>>>>> which

> >>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>> is not identical with the rasi whose name the navamsha

> >>>>>>>>>

> >>> enjoys,

> >>>

> >>>>>>> and

> >>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>> the

> >>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>> results from them in the 21st adhyaaya. How do you map

> >>>>>>>>>

> >>> back

> >>>

> >>>>> such

> >>>>>

> >>>>>>> a

> >>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>> navamsha to the rasi and what should be the logic? You

> >>>>>>>>>

> >>> also

> >>>

> >>>>> see

> >>>>>

> >>>>>>>>> reference to Guru occupying own Trimshamsha,

> >>>>>>>>>

> > irrespective

> >

> >>> of

> >>>

> >>>>>>> rasi

> >>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>> in the

> >>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>> same adhayaaya. There are too many references like

> >>>>>>>>>

> > this to

> >

> >>>>>>> question

> >>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>> the

> >>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>> theory that the amshas need always be mapped back to

> >>>>>>>>>

> >>> identical

> >>>

> >>>>>>> rasi

> >>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>> in

> >>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>> rasi chart.

> >>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>> Could you tell why this reluctance to accept Varaha

> >>>>>>>>>

> >>> Mihira?

> >>>

> >>>>>>>>> Chandrashekhar.

> >>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>> vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> >>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>> Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> >>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>> Meshamshe, Vrishamshe Transit results can be seen

> >>>>>>>>>>

> > from

> >

> >>> Mesha

> >>>

> >>>>>>> and

> >>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>> Vrishabha rashis.Thus you are aware of what i am

> >>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>> saying.Moreover

> >>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>> we

> >>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>> have seen paparkshe.we have seen meshadi rashige

> >>>>>>>>>>

> >>> swamshe.we

> >>>

> >>>>>>> have

> >>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>> seen

> >>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>> that bhrigwonkaraka varge ,as per your understanding

> >>>>>>>>>>

> >>> cannot

> >>>

> >>>>>>>> satisfy

> >>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>> both mars and venus.The very next shloka is talking

> >>>>>>>>>>

> >>> about

> >>>

> >>>>> mars

> >>>>>

> >>>>>>> and

> >>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>> venus yuti or aspecting.

> >>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>> Now we can forget all these as you are not williing

> >>>>>>>>>>

> > to

> >

> >>>>> accept

> >>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>> rashi,riksha etc as valid reasoning.

> >>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>> We have seen Lagna shadvargake shloka with aspectual

> >>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>> grades,proving

> >>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>> that they ae not rashi drishtis.Couple of days back

> >>>>>>>>>>

> > and

> >

> >>> many

> >>>

> >>>>>>>> times in

> >>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>> the past,i have heard from you that you don't

> >>>>>>>>>>

> > support

> >

> >>>>> aspects

> >>>>>

> >>>>>>> in

> >>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>> Vargas.

> >>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>> If you still have the sam views,then to understand

> >>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>> shadvargake

> >>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>> shloka,we have to see planets aspecting lagna

> >>>>>>>>>>

> > in ''six

> >

> >>>>>>> charts''.As

> >>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>> lagna can fall in any rashi,you have to accept

> >>>>>>>>>>

> > aspects

> >

> >>> fully

> >>>

> >>>>>>> in

> >>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>> all

> >>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>> Varga charts.

> >>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>> This is relevant to our discussion as lagnamsha is

> >>>>>>>>>>

> > also

> >

> >>>>> part of

> >>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>> shadvargas of lagna.

> >>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>> As you are aware ,the BPHS translator too has

> >>>>>>>>>>

> > expressed

> >

> >>> his

> >>>

> >>>>>>>> concern.

> >>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>> Regds

> >>>>>>>>>> Pradeep

> >>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>

> >>> <%40>

> >>>

> >>>>> <%40>

> >>>>>

> >>>>>>> <%40>

> >>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>> <%40>,

> >>>>>>>>>>

> > Chandrashekhar

> >

> >>>>>>>>>> <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> >>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>> Dear Pradeep,

> >>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>> How could I think shadvarga of lagna is shadvarga

> >>>>>>>>>>>

> > of

> >

> >>>>> rashi?

> >>>>>

> >>>>>>>> Lagna

> >>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>> is the

> >>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>> point on the eastern horizon at the time of birth

> >>>>>>>>>>>

> > of a

> >

> >>>>>>> jataka.

> >>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>> There is no dispute about what is lagnamsha and

> >>>>>>>>>>>

> > what

> >

> >>> is

> >>>

> >>>>>>>> karakamsha

> >>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>> at

> >>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>> all. At the same time when reference is to a graha

> >>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>> falling in

> >>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>> Lagnamsha

> >>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>> it refers to the navamsha rasi (or sector ruled by

> >>>>>>>>>>>

> >>> one of

> >>>

> >>>>>>> the

> >>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>> rasis

> >>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>> of a

> >>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>> planet, barring Sun and Chandra if you like it

> >>>>>>>>>>>

> > that

> >

> >>> way)

> >>>

> >>>>> in

> >>>>>

> >>>>>>>> which

> >>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>> the

> >>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>> lagnamsha falls. Now that being so where is the

> >>>>>>>>>>>

> > shubha

> >

> >>>>> graha

> >>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>> supposed to

> >>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>> fall in the shloka I quoted? Same with the Shubh

> >>>>>>>>>>>

> >>> graha in

> >>>

> >>>>>>>>>> Karakamsha and

> >>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>> needing drishti of shubha graha on it. It is easy

> >>>>>>>>>>>

> > to

> >

> >>> say

> >>>

> >>>>> that

> >>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>> these

> >>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>> need to be seen in rasi, but for lack of the

> >>>>>>>>>>>

> >>> reference to

> >>>

> >>>>>>> rasi,

> >>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>> there,

> >>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>> there is no reason to assume that it does not

> >>>>>>>>>>>

> > refer to

> >

> >>>>>>> navamsha

> >>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>> rasi.

> >>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>> The reference to grahas

> >>>>>>>>>>>

> >>> in " Meshaamshe " , " Vrishabhaamshe "

> >>>

> >>>>>>> etc

> >>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>> are

> >>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>> quite

> >>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>> clear, in BPHS.

> >>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>> Take care,

> >>>>>>>>>>> Chandrashekhar.

> >>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>> vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> >>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>> Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> >>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>> Of course Yes,you are correct.Varga is found for

> >>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>> this

> >>>

> >>>>>>> bindu

> >>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>> and in

> >>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>> the case of planets their degree decides.The

> >>>>>>>>>>>>

> > rest

> >

> >>> you

> >>>

> >>>>> have

> >>>>>

> >>>>>>>> stated

> >>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>> is

> >>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>> also as per definition.My point was made under

> >>>>>>>>>>>>

> > the

> >

> >>>>>>> impression

> >>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>> that

> >>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>> you have a view that,shadvarga of Lagna is

> >>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>> shadvarga of

> >>>

> >>>>> a

> >>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>> rashi.If so

> >>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>> it is not.Shad varga is found for Lagna bindu.

> >>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>> The full Rashi/Kshethra in which Lagna bindu

> >>>>>>>>>>>>

> > falls

> >

> >>>>> becomes

> >>>>>

> >>>>>>> its

> >>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>> first

> >>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>> Varga.

> >>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>> The Translation is entiterely correct and no

> >>>>>>>>>>>>

> > one can

> >

> >>>>>>>>>> contradict.This

> >>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>> is similar to one planet aspecting shadvargas of

> >>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>> lagna.

> >>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>> Lagnamsha is already covered in the shadvargas

> >>>>>>>>>>>>

> > of

> >

> >>>>>>>>>> lagna.Karakamsha is

> >>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>> similar too.

> >>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>> Now let us see it on a chart.Karkamasha is in

> >>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>> Dhanu.Jupiter is

> >>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>> placed

> >>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>> in Mithuna Rashi.Shubha graha is aspecting

> >>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>> Karakamsha

> >>>

> >>>>> Lagna

> >>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>> (Rashi).Similarly Lagnamsha.

> >>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>> You are already aware of the rules for aspects.

> >>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>> Respect

> >>>>>>>>>>>> Pradeep

> >>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>> <%40>

> >>>

> >>>>> <%40>

> >>>>>

> >>>>>>> <%40>

> >>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>> <%40>

> >>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>> <%40>,

> >>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>> Chandrashekhar

> >>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>> <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> >>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Dear Pradeep,

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>> I see your point of view. anyway even within

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>> shadvargas

> >>>>>

> >>>>>>> we

> >>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>> look

> >>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>> for

> >>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>> the

> >>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>> degree of a planet falling within a certain

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>

> > span

> >

> >>> of

> >>>

> >>>>>>> degrees

> >>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>> and

> >>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>> not

> >>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>> one

> >>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>> particular bindu.

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>> I agree that rashi is a Varga and my question

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>

> > is

> >

> >>> if

> >>>

> >>>>> one

> >>>>>

> >>>>>>> can

> >>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>> look at

> >>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>> aspects in one Varga why not in other Vargas?

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>

> > I am

> >

> >>>>> sure

> >>>>>

> >>>>>>> you

> >>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>> know

> >>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>> that

> >>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>> personally I use navamsha to find only the

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>> strength of

> >>>

> >>>>>>>> grahas,

> >>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>> but

> >>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>> there

> >>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>> is no reason to rule out aspects in Navamshas

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>

> > or

> >

> >>> other

> >>>

> >>>>>>>> charts

> >>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>> totally.

> >>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>> One of the raj yogas mentioned by Parashara

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>

> > talks

> >

> >>> of

> >>>

> >>>>>>> aspect

> >>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>> of

> >>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>> shubha

> >>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>> grahas on the karakamsha and Lagnamsha which

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>> should

> >>>

> >>>>> also

> >>>>>

> >>>>>>> be

> >>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>> tenanted by

> >>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Shubha grahas, leaving no doubt as to where

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>

> > the

> >

> >>>>> aspects

> >>>>>

> >>>>>>> are

> >>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>> to

> >>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>> be

> >>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>> seen.

> >>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>> And for the record the translation to that

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>

> > effect

> >

> >>> is

> >>>

> >>>>> by

> >>>>>

> >>>>>>> an

> >>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>> eminent

> >>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>> astrologer who was Professor of astrology in

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>> Banaras

> >>>

> >>>>>>> Hindu

> >>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>> University.

> >>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Take care,

> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Chandrashekhar.

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>> vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Lagna as a bindu was mentioned for driving

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> > home

> >

> >>> the

> >>>

> >>>>>>>> shadvarga

> >>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> calculations,if any members were having

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>> doubts.For

> >>>

> >>>>>>>> shadvarga

> >>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> calculation of planets too we need the

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> > bindu or

> >

> >>>>> degree

> >>>>>

> >>>>>>> of

> >>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>> a

> >>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>> planet

> >>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> within a rashi, as you are aware.

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> We have to look at Rashis.This is so because

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>> Rashi

> >>>

> >>>>>>> (one 30

> >>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>> degree

> >>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> sector ) is the first varga.As this Varga is

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>> synonymous

> >>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>> with

> >>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>> Bhava

> >>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> houses are analysed w.r to Rashis.

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Respect

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Pradeep

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>> <%40>

> >>>

> >>>>> <%40>

> >>>>>

> >>>>>>> <%40>

> >>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>> <%40>

> >>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>> <%40>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> <%40>,

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>> Chandrashekhar

> >>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dear Pradeep,

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If lagna is a bindu a you propose, and

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> > nothing

> >

> >>>>> more,

> >>>>>

> >>>>>>>> then

> >>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>> how

> >>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>> can

> >>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> it

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> indicate an entire rasi? Now if this is

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>> correct,

> >>>

> >>>>> and

> >>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>> technically

> >>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> it is,

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> then by your reckoning there is no need to

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>> look at

> >>>

> >>>>>>> rasis

> >>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>> too. Is

> >>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> that

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what you mean to say?

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If shadvargas are not related to the

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> > portion

> >

> >>>>> falling

> >>>>>

> >>>>>>> in

> >>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>> the

> >>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>> lagna

> >>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> rasis,

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which holds the degree of lagna Madhya,

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> > then

> >

> >>> it

> >>>

> >>>>>>> appears

> >>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>> we

> >>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>> must

> >>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>> ask

> >>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sages to redefine Vargas. I doubt they

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> > need

> >

> >>> our

> >>>

> >>>>>>> advise.

> >>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Take care,

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Chandrashekhar.

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There was a purpose.I just wanted to

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>> explain it

> >>>

> >>>>> to

> >>>>>

> >>>>>>> the

> >>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>> members if

> >>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> some of them are not sure on what

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> > shadvarga

> >

> >>> of

> >>>

> >>>>>>> lagna

> >>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>> is

> >>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>> and

> >>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>> how it

> >>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is calculated.

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As you have said Vargas are divisions

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> > of a

> >

> >>>>>>> rashi.But

> >>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>> shadvargas of

> >>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Lagna is not the Vargas falling in

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>> Lagna.Here

> >>>

> >>>>>>> lagna is

> >>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>> not a

> >>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rashi,but a bindu.Vargas are found from

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> > a

> >

> >>>>>>> degree.The

> >>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>> degree

> >>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>> of a

> >>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> planet or degree of lagna.

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As you may know we do notneed six

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> > charts to

> >

> >>>>>>> dtermine

> >>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>> shadvargas of

> >>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lagna.All we need is the degree of lagna

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>> and the

> >>>

> >>>>>>> rashi

> >>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>> rising.

> >>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Let us take an example.Lagna is at 11

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>> degrees in

> >>>

> >>>>>>>> dhanu.

> >>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Let us find the shadvargas of Lagna

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> > with th

> >

> >>> help

> >>>

> >>>>>>> of

> >>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>> rising

> >>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>> rashi

> >>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> and

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> degree.

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1st Varga - The Rashi in which Lagna

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> > bindu

> >

> >>> is

> >>>

> >>>>>>>> falling -

> >>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>> Dhanu

> >>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2nd Varga - The Hora in which Lagna

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> > bindu is

> >

> >>>>>>> falling -

> >>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>> As

> >>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>> 11

> >>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> degrees

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> falls in the 1st half of dhanu - Surya

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> > Hora

> >

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3rd Varga - The drekkana in which Lagna

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>> bindu is

> >>>

> >>>>>>>> falling -

> >>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>> As

> >>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>> 11

> >>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> degrees falls in the 2nd 1/3rd of

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> > dhanu -

> >

> >>>>> Drekkana

> >>>>>

> >>>>>>> is

> >>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>> Mesha.

> >>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 4th Varga - As 11 degrees falls in the

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> > 3rd

> >

> >>>>>>>>>> saptamsha ,Lagna

> >>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> saptamsha

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is Kumbha.

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Similraly - Lagna navamsha is

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> > Karka,Lagna

> >

> >>>>>>> Trimshamsha

> >>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>> is

> >>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>> dhanu.

> >>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thus the purpose of whole exercise was

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> > to

> >

> >>> say

> >>>

> >>>>> that

> >>>>>

> >>>>>>>> when

> >>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>> we say

> >>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> shadvargas of Lagna or Mars,it does not

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>> mean the

> >>>

> >>>>>>>> rashis

> >>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>> owned

> >>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>> by

> >>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Lagna or Mars.But the Rashis on towhich

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>> they are

> >>>

> >>>>>>>>>> placed,having

> >>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hora,drekkana etc etc.

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Vargas of Mars in the 2nd Rashi from

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>> karakamsha

> >>>

> >>>>>>> too

> >>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>> is no

> >>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> differet.

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There are many meanings,that is why

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> > Rashi is

> >

> >>>>>>> called as

> >>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Kshethra /Riksha /havana etc.But i don't

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>> think

> >>>

> >>>>>>> sage

> >>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>> will

> >>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>> use

> >>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>> the

> >>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> saword to represent something belonging

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> > to

> >

> >>> same

> >>>

> >>>>>>> class.

> >>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For example sage will not use ''sva'' to

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>> mean

> >>>

> >>>>> 2nd

> >>>>>

> >>>>>>> as

> >>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>> well

> >>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>> as

> >>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3rd.Then

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we cannot interpret.

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Similarly Rashi and navamsha will not be

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>> represented

> >>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>> using the

> >>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> same

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> word.Rashi/Kshethra/Riksha/Bhvana/Lagna

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> > etc

> >

> >>> are

> >>>

> >>>>>>>> synonyms

> >>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>> an

> >>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>> ifthey

> >>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are used for navamsha then what is the

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> > whole

> >

> >>>>>>> purpose

> >>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>> behind

> >>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> defintion.

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On the other hand sva was used for iems

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> > from

> >

> >>>>>>> different

> >>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>> classes.

> >>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This wasin mind while making such a

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>> statement.I

> >>>

> >>>>>>> will

> >>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>> try

> >>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>> my

> >>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>> best

> >>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> to

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> polish my style of writing.I accept my

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>> limitations

> >>>>>

> >>>>>>> in

> >>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>> writing.

> >>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Respect

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Pradeep

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>> <%40>

> >>>

> >>>>> <%40>

> >>>>>

> >>>>>>> <%40>

> >>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>> <%40>

> >>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>> <%40>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> <%40>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <%40>,

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>> Chandrashekhar

> >>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dear Pradeep,

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I have not understood your question

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> > or the

> >

> >>>>>>> intent

> >>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>> behind

> >>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>> that.

> >>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> The

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Vargas are divisions, within a rasi,

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>> ruled by

> >>>

> >>>>>>>> different

> >>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>> grahas.

> >>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> So

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> if

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> one wants t look at Vargas falling in

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>> lagna

> >>>

> >>>>> the

> >>>>>

> >>>>>>> shad

> >>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>> Vargas

> >>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>> will

> >>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mean

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the rasi equivalent occurring at lagna

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>> position

> >>>>>

> >>>>>>> in

> >>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>> the 6

> >>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> divisional

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> charts of Rashi, Hora, Dreshkana,

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>> Navamsha,

> >>>

> >>>>>>>>>> Dwaadashamsha

> >>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>> and

> >>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Trimshamsha. Or at least this is what

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> > I

> >

> >>> have

> >>>

> >>>>>>> learnt.

> >>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sages did not use words in vain or

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>> context. I

> >>>

> >>>>>>>> agree. But

> >>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>> that

> >>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> does

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mean they used the words to mean only

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> > one

> >

> >>>>> thing

> >>>>>

> >>>>>>>> always.

> >>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I never said that the meaning can be

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>> changed

> >>>

> >>>>> to

> >>>>>

> >>>>>>>> suit our

> >>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> convenience and

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I would request you not to attribute

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> > such

> >

> >>>>>>>> sentiments to

> >>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>> me.

> >>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> However I do say that word are used in

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>> different

> >>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>> contexts to

> >>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> mean

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> different things, especially in

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> > Sanskrit

> >

> >>>>> texts of

> >>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>> Jyotish. I

> >>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> have,

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> just

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a few minutes back use of " Sva " with

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>> different

> >>>

> >>>>>>>> meaning

> >>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>> at

> >>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> different

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> places by Varaha Mihira to you. I hope

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>> you do

> >>>

> >>>>>>> not

> >>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>> also

> >>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>> attribute

> >>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> words that you attributed to me to the

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>> venerated

> >>>>>

> >>>>>>>> Varaha

> >>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>> Mihira.

> >>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Take care,

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Chandrashekhar,.

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Pls tell me what you mean by

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> > shadvargas

> >

> >>> of

> >>>

> >>>>>>>> lagna.How

> >>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>> do

> >>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>> you

> >>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> find

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> them.Do you go by ownership or

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> > placement

> >

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (Rashi/navamsha/dwadshamsha

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> etc).

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There are shlokas in Varahamihiras

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> > text

> >

> >>>>> which

> >>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>> says ,Okarkshe

> >>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Purushamshakae.

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Which means in Ojarashi and Oja

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> > amsha.

> >

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As per me sages will not use any

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> > words

> >

> >>> out

> >>>

> >>>>> of

> >>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>> context.If

> >>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>> he

> >>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> wants

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> say amsha he will mention it.He will

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>> not use

> >>>

> >>>>>>>> Rashi to

> >>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>> mean as

> >>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> amsha.

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ojarkshe is Oja Rashi.Similarly

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>> Paparkshe is

> >>>

> >>>>>>> Papa

> >>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>> Rashi.

> >>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you want to say as per our

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>> conveninece we

> >>>

> >>>>>>> can

> >>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>> change

> >>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>> the

> >>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> meaning

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of riksha/rashi/bhavana/bhavas as

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>> navamsha

> >>>

> >>>>>>> then i

> >>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>> cannot

> >>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>> say

> >>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anything.

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I can only respect your views.

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Respect

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Pradeep

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>> <%40>

> >>>

> >>>>> <%40>

> >>>>>

> >>>>>>> <%40>

> >>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>> <%40>

> >>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>> <%40>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> <%40>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <%40>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <%

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> > 40>,

> >

> >>>>>>>>>> Chandrashekhar

> >>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dear Pradeep,

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I will tell you why that happens.

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> > You

> >

> >>>>> begin

> >>>>>

> >>>>>>> with

> >>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>> quoting

> >>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Parashara

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> then give a sutra from Jaimini as

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>> being

> >>>

> >>>>> said

> >>>>>

> >>>>>>> by

> >>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>> Parashara.

> >>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Interpretation of sutras is not

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> > the

> >

> >>>>> easiest

> >>>>>

> >>>>>>> of

> >>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>> the

> >>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>> things,

> >>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> more

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> so

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jaimini's Upadesha sutras. That

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> > the

> >

> >>> sutras

> >>>

> >>>>>>> use

> >>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>> KaTaPaYaadi

> >>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> encryption

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> makes them even more difficult to

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>> interpret.

> >>>>>

> >>>>>>> I

> >>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>> am

> >>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>> sure

> >>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>> you

> >>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> have

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> noticed

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this when Sreenadh interpreted the

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>> KaTaPaYaadi

> >>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>> Varga in

> >>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>> a

> >>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrong

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fashion.

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Then there is your insistence to

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> > let

> >

> >>>>> Sanskrit

> >>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>> grammar

> >>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>> give

> >>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> a go

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> if

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that can make interpretation of a

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>> shloka

> >>>

> >>>>> or

> >>>>>

> >>>>>>>> sutra

> >>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>> fit

> >>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>> your

> >>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proposition.

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Any of the Shodasha Vargas of a

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> > rasi

> >

> >>> can

> >>>

> >>>>> be

> >>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>> referred to

> >>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>> as

> >>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Varga,

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but as

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> far as I know in astrology, when

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> > one

> >

> >>> talks

> >>>

> >>>>>>> of

> >>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>> Varga,

> >>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>> without

> >>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> qualifying

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it, or Amshas that generally

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> > refers to

> >

> >>>>>>> navamsha

> >>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>> or

> >>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dwadashaamsha.

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Another reason that we can not

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> > agree,

> >

> >>> or

> >>>

> >>>>>>> seem to

> >>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>> agree,

> >>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>> is

> >>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> that

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you are

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reluctant to call a navamsha by

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> > the

> >

> >>>>>>> nomenclature

> >>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>> navamsha

> >>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> rasi.

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> makes it difficult to convey what

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> > I

> >

> >>> mean

> >>>

> >>>>> to

> >>>>>

> >>>>>>> say

> >>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>> in

> >>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>> English

> >>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> as

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the language of the net and which

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>> both of

> >>>

> >>>>> us

> >>>>>

> >>>>>>>> know.

> >>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>> Now

> >>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> since you

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> do not

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> want to use the word Mesha

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> > navamsha as

> >

> >>>>> Mesha

> >>>>>

> >>>>>>> is

> >>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>> a

> >>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>> rashi

> >>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>> and

> >>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> by

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> logic it can not be a navamsha, it

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>> becomes

> >>>

> >>>>>>>>>> difficult to

> >>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> convey

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what I

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> understand by the texts.

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I will like to draw your

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> > attention to

> >

> >>> the

> >>>

> >>>>>>>> literal

> >>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>> meaning

> >>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> word

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rasi. It means a heap and nothing

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>> more. In

> >>>

> >>>>>>>> astrology

> >>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>> since

> >>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> it

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> encompasses many stars that make

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> > up a

> >

> >>>>>>> nakshatra

> >>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>> the

> >>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>> 1/12th

> >>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> division of

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the zodiac is called a Rasi. Or at

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>> least

> >>>

> >>>>>>> this

> >>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>> is my

> >>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> understanding

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reason of using the word rasi for

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> > the

> >

> >>>>> 1/12th

> >>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>> division

> >>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>> of the

> >>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> zodiac.

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I do not agree that by Chandra in

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> > Guru

> >

> >>>>> Varga

> >>>>>

> >>>>>>> it

> >>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>> is

> >>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>> meant

> >>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> that

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Varga of

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Chandra is being seen. To me we

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> > are

> >

> >>>>> talking

> >>>>>

> >>>>>>>> about is

> >>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>> whether

> >>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Chandra is

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> falling in the Varga of Guru in

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> > which

> >

> >>> ever

> >>>

> >>>>>>> rasi

> >>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>> he

> >>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>> is

> >>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> occupying.

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So in

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Navamsha we see whether Chandra is

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>> occupying

> >>>>>

> >>>>>>>> Pisces

> >>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>> or

> >>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sagittarius

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> navamsha. I also do not agree that

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>> there

> >>>

> >>>>> are

> >>>>>

> >>>>>>>> Vargas

> >>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>> of

> >>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Chandra

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of any

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> planet for that matter. The 16

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> > Vargas

> >

> >>> that

> >>>

> >>>>>>>> Parashara

> >>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>> talks

> >>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> about

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that of a Rasi, beginning from the

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>> Rashi

> >>>

> >>>>>>> itself.

> >>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If the Vargas are not owned by

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>> different

> >>>

> >>>>>>>> planets,

> >>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>> pray

> >>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>> why

> >>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> does

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the sage

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tell us to see occupation of a

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>> friend, own

> >>>

> >>>>>>> etc.

> >>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>> Varga to

> >>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> assess

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> strength of a planet in the Varga

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>> concerned?

> >>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I have interacted with many

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>> astrologers of

> >>>

> >>>>>>>>>> yesteryears

> >>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>> (with

> >>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> respect to

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> my age group) and have never found

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>> them

> >>>

> >>>>>>>> claiming the

> >>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>> Vargas

> >>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> to

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> only lagna and planets.

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you insist that sage Parashara

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>> gave the

> >>>

> >>>>>>> SU.

> >>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>> 52.-

> >>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>> " Tatra

> >>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bhrigwongaraka

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> varge paradarikaha " , perhaps you

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> > are

> >

> >>>>>>> referring

> >>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>> to

> >>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>> some

> >>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> edition

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> BPHS

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that I do not have. However I do

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> > have

> >

> >>> that

> >>>

> >>>>>>> in

> >>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>> the

> >>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>> umpteen

> >>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> different

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> texts on Jaimini that I do have

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> > in my

> >

> >>>>>>> library.

> >>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>> And

> >>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>> by

> >>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>> the

> >>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> way,

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> some

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> scholars have interpreted that to

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>> mean 9th

> >>>

> >>>>>>> from

> >>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>> Karakamsha

> >>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> and

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the 2nd.

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I do not agree that a graha can

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>> simultaneously

> >>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>> occupy

> >>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>> the

> >>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Varga

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> both

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Venus and Mars, simultaneously,

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> > as is

> >

> >>>>> being

> >>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>> suggested

> >>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> whether in

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rasi or

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in any of the Vargas. It could

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> > only

> >

> >>> occupy

> >>>

> >>>>>>> one

> >>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>> or

> >>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>> the

> >>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>> other.

> >>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I have seen you arguing in favor

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> > of

> >

> >>>>> looking

> >>>>>

> >>>>>>> at

> >>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>> the

> >>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Shadvargas of

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> grahas Venus and Mars. I would

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> > like

> >

> >>> you to

> >>>

> >>>>>>> look

> >>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>> at

> >>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>> all

> >>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>> the

> >>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> six

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> charts

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> whose Vargas together are

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> > referred as

> >

> >>>>>>>> Shadvargas and

> >>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>> try to

> >>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> find

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> out

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> whether they do indeed contain

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> > the 6

> >

> >>>>> Vargas

> >>>>>

> >>>>>>> of

> >>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>> Venus

> >>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>> and 6

> >>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Vargas

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Mars. I am sure that you will find

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>> them to

> >>>

> >>>>>>>> contain

> >>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>> only

> >>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>> 5

> >>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Vargas

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> each of

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the grahas. Once you confirm this

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> > by

> >

> >>>>> looking

> >>>>>

> >>>>>>> at

> >>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>> the

> >>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>> 6

> >>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>> Vargas

> >>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> self,

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tell me how one can look at

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>> Shadvargas of

> >>>

> >>>>>>> Venus

> >>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>> or

> >>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>> Mars

> >>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>> as

> >>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> is

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> being

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> suggested to be the

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> > interpretation of

> >

> >>> the

> >>>

> >>>>>>> sutra

> >>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>> that

> >>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>> you are

> >>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> referring to.

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You may also be interested to know

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>> that

> >>>

> >>>>>>>> Parashara

> >>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>> talks

> >>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>> of

> >>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> AK

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> falling in

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the Varga of Chandra, Mars or

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> > Venus

> >

> >>> also

> >>>

> >>>>>>> having

> >>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>> the

> >>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>> roving

> >>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> eye

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> others

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wives. So the combination of

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> > Venus and

> >

> >>>>> Mars

> >>>>>

> >>>>>>>> being

> >>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>> the

> >>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>> only

> >>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> one

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> giving

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the roving eye for other's wives,

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>> that you

> >>>

> >>>>>>> are

> >>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>> advancing as

> >>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> a

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> standalone

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> principle, may not, necessarily,

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> > be

> >

> >>> the

> >>>

> >>>>> way

> >>>>>

> >>>>>>> the

> >>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>> sage

> >>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>> looked

> >>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> at

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> their

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> interpretation.

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Take care,

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Chandrashekhar.

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Those were written by me.

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I am very dissappointed to see

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>> that ,inspite

> >>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>> of

> >>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>> repeating

> >>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> numerus

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> times,you are unable to get

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> > what i

> >

> >>> am

> >>>

> >>>>>>> saying.

> >>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I am not talking about rashis

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>> lorded by

> >>>

> >>>>>>>> shukra or

> >>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>> Mars

> >>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> here.I

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> am

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> talking about the shadvargas

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> > vargas

> >

> >>> of

> >>>

> >>>>>>> mars

> >>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>> and

> >>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>> shukra.

> >>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Pls tell me what is the meaning

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> > of

> >

> >>>>>>> shadvargas

> >>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>> or

> >>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>> simply

> >>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Varga

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lagna.

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is the rashi in which lagna

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> > is

> >

> >>>>>>> placed.The

> >>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>> navamshaka of

> >>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Lagna,Trimshamshaka of Lagna

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>> etc.Can we

> >>>

> >>>>>>> see

> >>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>> any

> >>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>> lordship

> >>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> as

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> say.Lagna does not own any

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> > rashi.

> >

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Similarly when we say vargas of

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>> Venus -

> >>>

> >>>>> It

> >>>>>

> >>>>>>>> means

> >>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>> Rashi

> >>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>> of

> >>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>> Venus,Hora,navamshaka,drekkana,trimshamshaka

> >>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>> etc.

> >>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Shadvarga is never the rashi

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> > owned

> >

> >>> by a

> >>>

> >>>>>>>>>> planet.Then

> >>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>> Lagna

> >>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> can

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> never

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have shadvarga.

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On the other hand if we

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> > say,Chandra

> >

> >>> in

> >>>

> >>>>> Guru

> >>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>> Varga - We

> >>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> are not

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> seeing

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the shadvarga of Guru,but that

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> > of

> >

> >>>>>>> chandra.Is

> >>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>> chandra

> >>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> placed in

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Guru

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rashi?Is Chandra navamshaka in

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> > Guru

> >

> >>>>>>> Rashi.Is

> >>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>> Chandra

> >>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Trimshamshaka in

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Guru Rashi etc is what we

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> > check.If

> >

> >>> so

> >>>

> >>>>>>> chandras

> >>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>> vargas

> >>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> fall in

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> guru

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rashis or we say chandra is in

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>> guruvargas.

> >>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For the same reason schoplars of

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>> yesteryears

> >>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>> always

> >>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>> say

> >>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Vargas

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for our natal Lagna and Planets.

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On the other hand you are taking

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>> them as

> >>>

> >>>>>>>> owned by

> >>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>> a

> >>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> planet.Every

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> shadvarga that derive is like

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>> that.You

> >>>

> >>>>> may

> >>>>>

> >>>>>>>> check

> >>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>> this

> >>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>> with

> >>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> shri

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Narasimha,how he is deriving it

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> > for

> >

> >>> his

> >>>

> >>>>>>>> software.

> >>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For the same reason Bhrigu and

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>> Angara

> >>>

> >>>>> can

> >>>>>

> >>>>>>> have

> >>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>> Varga

> >>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> together

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rashi which is 2nd from

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>> Karakamsha.Sage

> >>>

> >>>>>>>> clearly

> >>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>> talks

> >>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> about

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> vargas from both.Moreover the

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> > next

> >

> >>>>> shloka

> >>>>>

> >>>>>>> is

> >>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>> talking

> >>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>> about

> >>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Mars

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Venus together or aspecting the

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> > 2nd

> >

> >>> from

> >>>

> >>>>>>>>>> karakamsha.

> >>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On the other hand if we go by

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> > your

> >

> >>>>>>>> explanation,we

> >>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>> have to

> >>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> opt

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> just one among shukra or Mars

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> > which

> >

> >>> is

> >>>

> >>>>> not

> >>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>> proper.Their

> >>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Joint

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> influence creates sexual drive.

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I request you to kindly read

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> > this

> >

> >>> with

> >>>

> >>>>>>> care.

> >>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rspect

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Pradeep

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --- In

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >

> >

> >>> <%40>

> >>>

> >>>>> <%40>

> >>>>>

> >>>>>>> <%40>

> >>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>> <%40>

> >>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>> <%40>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> <%40>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <%40>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <%

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> > 40>

> >

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <%

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>> 40>,

> >>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>> Chandrashekhar

> >>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dear Pradeep,

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The below remarks are not

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> > from my

> >

> >>> mail

> >>>

> >>>>>>> at

> >>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>> all.

> >>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>> I do

> >>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>> not

> >>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> know

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> why

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> think I would write that. I am

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>> sure

> >>>

> >>>>> you

> >>>>>

> >>>>>>> know

> >>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>> that

> >>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>> this

> >>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> is

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> my

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> style

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of writing at all.

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> " >From my experience -Mars +

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> > Venus

> >

> >>>>>>> creates

> >>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>> certin

> >>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> behaviour.I

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> feel

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> too would have experienced

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>> this.Why

> >>>

> >>>>> are

> >>>>>

> >>>>>>> you

> >>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>> going

> >>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>> for

> >>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> varga

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> owned by

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> just one of them and that too

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>> without

> >>>

> >>>>> a

> >>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>> planetary

> >>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>> link

> >>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> is

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> really

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> worrying me.Shri Rath has

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>> translated

> >>>

> >>>>> so,i

> >>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>> agree.But

> >>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>> i

> >>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> have

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> an

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> inner feeling that Shri Rath

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> > will

> >

> >>>>>>> definitely

> >>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>> correct

> >>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> this

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> benfit

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of jyotish community. "

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As to why I said they could

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> > not be

> >

> >>>>>>> having

> >>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>> their

> >>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>> Vargas

> >>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> together in

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> one

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rasi or Bhava does not need

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> > any

> >

> >>> deeper

> >>>

> >>>>>>>>>> explanation.

> >>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>> If

> >>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> you

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> looking

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at the 2nd from Karakamsha in

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> > the

> >

> >>> rasi

> >>>

> >>>>>>>> chart,

> >>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>> as you

> >>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> think

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> right, you

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> could not have both Mesha and

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>> Vrishabha

> >>>>>

> >>>>>>> or

> >>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>> Tula

> >>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>> and

> >>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Vrishchika

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rasi

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2nd from the Karakamsha, is

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> > that

> >

> >>> not

> >>>

> >>>>> so?

> >>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>> Similarly

> >>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>> if in

> >>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> navamsha

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> chart

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the 2nd from Karakamsha is to

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> > be

> >

> >>> seen,

> >>>

> >>>>>>> the

> >>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>> 2nd

> >>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>> could be

> >>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> not

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> both

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> navamshas.

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Take care,

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Chandrashekhar.

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I though you meant

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> > so.Because in

> >

> >>>>>>>> subsequent

> >>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>> lines

> >>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>> we

> >>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> can

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> see

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Swamsha

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and Karakamsha being used

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> > for

> >

> >>> the

> >>>

> >>>>> same

> >>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>> purpose.But if

> >>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> you

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> think

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there are other places where

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>> swamsha

> >>>

> >>>>>>> is

> >>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>> used

> >>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>> for

> >>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>> say

> >>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Lagnamsha ,then

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> i can trust you if you can

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>> point me

> >>>

> >>>>> to

> >>>>>

> >>>>>>>> that.

> >>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>> This

> >>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> should

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be a

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> problem and in no way it

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> > will

> >

> >>> affect

> >>>

> >>>>>>> us.

> >>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Venus and Mars can ofcourse

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> > have

> >

> >>>>> their

> >>>>>

> >>>>>>>> Vargas

> >>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>> in a

> >>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> single

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rashi or

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bhava.Venus can have

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> > navamsha

> >

> >>>>>>> there,Mars

> >>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>> can

> >>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>> have

> >>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> navamsha

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there,Venus can have

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> > Trimshamsha

> >

> >>>>>>>> there,Mars

> >>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>> can

> >>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>> have

> >>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Trimshamsha

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there,they both can have

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>> drekkana

> >>>

> >>>>>>> there

> >>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>> etc

> >>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>> etc.

> >>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thus sage is talking about

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>> Bhrigu

> >>>

> >>>>> and

> >>>>>

> >>>>>>>> Angara

> >>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>> both

> >>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>> (as

> >>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> you

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> identified gramattically)

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> > having

> >

> >>>>> varga

> >>>>>

> >>>>>>>> there

> >>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>> and

> >>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>> it is

> >>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> very

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> much

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> possible.

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you note the next line -

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> > Sage

> >

> >>> is

> >>>

> >>>>>>> talking

> >>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>> about

> >>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>> both

> >>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Venus

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Mars

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> joining or aspecting the 2nd

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>> from

> >>>

> >>>>>>>> Karakamsha.

> >>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >From my experience -Mars +

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>> Venus

> >>>

> >>>>>>> creates

> >>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>> certin

> >>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> behaviour.I

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> feel

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> too would have experienced

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>> this.Why

> >>>

> >>>>>>> are

> >>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>> you

> >>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>> going

> >>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>> for

> >>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> varga

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> owned by just one of them

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> > and

> >

> >>> that

> >>>

> >>>>> too

> >>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>> without a

> >>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> planetary

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> link is

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> really worrying me.Shri

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> > Rath has

> >

> >>>>>>>> translated

> >>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>> so,i

> >>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> agree.But i

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> an

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> inner feeling that Shri Rath

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>> will

> >>>

> >>>>>>>> definitely

> >>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>> correct

> >>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> this

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for the

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> benfit of jyotish community.

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I am surprised as to why

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> > you say

> >

> >>>>>>> so.That

> >>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>> they

> >>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>> cannot

> >>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> have

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> together.

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Respect

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Pardeep

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --- In

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>> <%

> >>>

> > 40>

> >

> >>>>> <%40>

> >>>>>

> >>>>>>> <%40>

> >>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>> <%40>

> >>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>> <%40>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> <%40>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <%40>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <%

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> > 40>

> >

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <%

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>> 40>

> >>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <%

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>> 40>,

> >>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Chandrashekhar

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dear Pradeep,

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I have never said that I

>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> > do

> >

> >>> not

> >>>

> >>>>>>> think

> >>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>> that

> >>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>> Swamsha

> >>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> and

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Karakamsha

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> different where the

>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> > context

> >

> >>>>> demands

> >>>>>

> >>>>>>> so.

> >>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>> At

> >>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>> the

> >>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>> same

> >>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> time I

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> do

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> think

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> grammar can be put to

>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> > rest to

> >

> >>> in

> >>>

> >>>>> the

> >>>>>

> >>>>>>>> name of

> >>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> context,

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> without

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> some

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sound

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reason.

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Of course if you want

>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>> contextual

> >>>

> >>>>>>>> translation

> >>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>> only,

> >>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> then

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> one can

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> certainly say that

>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>> the " Meshadi

> >>>

> >>>>>>> raashige

> >>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>> swaamshe "

> >>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> can

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> always be

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> translated as " Falling in

>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>> Mesha

> >>>

> >>>>>>>> navamsha in

> >>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>> Mesha

> >>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> rasi

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> etc. " .

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> By the way " Tatra

>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>> Bhrigwonkaraka

> >>>

> >>>>>>>> Varge " ,

> >>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>> that

> >>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>> you

> >>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mention, does

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mean varga of both Venus

>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> > and

> >

> >>> mars,

> >>>

> >>>>>>> but

> >>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>> of

> >>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>> varga

> >>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>> of

> >>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Venus OR

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Mars,

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> due to

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the grammar only. varga

>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> > of two

> >

> >>>>>>> planets

> >>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>> can

> >>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>> not

> >>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>> fall

> >>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> in

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> one

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bhava/amsha/rasi whether

>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> > in

> >

> >>> rasi

> >>>

> >>>>> or

> >>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>> Navamsha or

> >>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>> any

> >>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> chart.

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Take care,

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Chandrashekhar.

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Grammatically,what you

>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

 

> > are

> >

> >>>>> saying

> >>>>>

> >>>>>>> is

> >>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>> also

> >>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>> true.

> >>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But Jyotish defintions

>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

 

> > play

> >

> >>> a

> >>>

> >>>>>>>> preceding

> >>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>> role

> >>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>> in

> >>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> choosing

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> grammatical meaning.

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For example one meaning

>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

 

> > of

> >

> >>>>>>>> labhe ,Swamshe

> >>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>> etc

> >>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>> is

> >>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> in

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 11th

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> swamsha etc.

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But if we go by that we

>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

 

> > will

> >

> >>>>>>>> definitely

> >>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>> translate

> >>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> swamshe in

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> meshadi

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rashige as ''in

>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

 

> >>>>> Swamsha'',thereby

> >>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>> translating

> >>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>> it

> >>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> as

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> one

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> full

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> chart.This as you too

>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

 

> >>> agree,then

> >>>

> >>>>>>>> cannot

> >>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>> pass

> >>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>> the

> >>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> test,of

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> subsequent shlokas.I

>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

 

> >>> understand

> >>>

> >>>>>>> gladly

> >>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>> that

> >>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>> you

> >>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> too

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> agree that

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> swamsha and karakamsha

>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

 

> > are

> >

> >>> the

> >>>

> >>>>>>> same.

> >>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So the context decides

>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

 

> >>>>>>> plural/singular

> >>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>> and not

> >>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> necessarily

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the ''E''

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as you have rightly

>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

 

> >>> mentioned.

> >>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But in essence what i

>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

 

> > want

> >

> >>> to

> >>>

> >>>>> say

> >>>>>

> >>>>>>>> is ''E''

> >>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>> does

> >>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> not

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> always

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mean ''in

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the'' as you have

>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

 

> >>>>>>>> interpreted.Labheshe is

> >>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>> an

> >>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> example.Karake

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is an

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> example.

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thus it can very well

>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

 

> > mean

> >

> >>>>> Varga of

> >>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>> Shukra and

> >>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Mars-

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which can

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> then be

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> six vargas or one varga.

>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

 

> > (Not

> >

> >>>>>>> lordship)

> >>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Tatra Bhrigwonkaraka

>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

 

> > Varge -

> >

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Tatra -(There) In the

>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

 

> > second

> >

> >>>>> from

> >>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>> Karakamsha

> >>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Varga or Vargas of

>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

 

> > Venus and

> >

> >>>>> Mars

> >>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Now why should we need

>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

 

> > two

> >

> >>>>>>>> qualifiesrs for

> >>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> destination

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (1)

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2nd

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from karakamsha 2)in the

>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

 

> >>> vargas

> >>>

> >>>>>>> of?)-

> >>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>> if

> >>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>> we had

> >>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> another

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> planet

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> then

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your interpretation is

>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

 

> >>>>> right.That

> >>>>>

> >>>>>>>> planet

> >>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>> will

> >>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> answer

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> question -

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> who is in the vargas

>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

 

> > of ?

> >

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Similarly - Swamshad

>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

 

> > dhane

> >

> >>>>> Shukrar

> >>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Swamshad dhane is

>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

 

> > already

> >

> >>>>> pointing

> >>>>>

> >>>>>>> to

> >>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>> destination-

> >>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> why

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> need

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> another ''in the''

>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

 

> > vargas

> >

> >>> of.

> >>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On the other hand if we

>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

 

> > say

> >

> >>> in

> >>>

> >>>>> the

> >>>>>

> >>>>>>> 2nd

> >>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>> from

> >>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> karakamsha if

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> varga

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mars and venus are

>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

 

> >>> present,it

> >>>

> >>>>> fits

> >>>>>

> >>>>>>> in

> >>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> grammatically.Moreover

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> i had

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mentioned rashi lordship

>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

 

> >>> without

> >>>

> >>>>>>>> planetary

> >>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>> link

> >>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (placement/amsha

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> etc)

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is too general.

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Respect

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Pradeep

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --- In

>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

 

> >>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>

> >>> <%40>

> >>>

> >>>>> <%40> <%

> >>>>> 40>

> >>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>> <%40>

> >>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>> <%40>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> <%40>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <%40>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <%

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> > 40>

> >

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <%

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>> 40>

> >>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <%

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>> 40>

> >>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <%

>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

 

> >>>>>>>> 40>,

> >>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Chandrashekhar

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <chandrashekhar46@>

>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

 

> > wrote:

> >

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dear Pradeep,

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I may be wrong but

>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

 

> >>> the " E " by

> >>>

> >>>>>>> itself

> >>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>> does

> >>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>> not

> >>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> point

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> plural.

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is the

>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

 

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> word Shadvarga

>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

 

> > indicating

> >

> >>> 6

> >>>

> >>>>>>> Vargas

> >>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>> that

> >>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>> is

> >>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>> one

> >>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> group

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (though it

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> contains

>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

 

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> more than one unit)

>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

 

> > and

> >

> >>>>>>> so " Varge " ,

> >>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>> the

> >>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> singular is

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> used

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that.

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The

>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

 

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> " E " means " in " . I

>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

 

> > would be

> >

> >>>>> happy

> >>>>>

> >>>>>>> if

> >>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>> an

> >>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>> example

> >>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of " Varge "

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> being

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> plural

>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

 

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can be given.

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I do not at all think

>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

 

> > that

> >

> >>>>>>> Vargaka

> >>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>> or

> >>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>> Varga

> >>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>> is

> >>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> singular and

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Vargake

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or

>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

 

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Varge is plural, at

>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

 

> > all.

> >

> >>> Both

> >>>

> >>>>> the

> >>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>> manner of

> >>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> using

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> word

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> only

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> indicates singular.

>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

 

> > it is

> >

> >>> no

> >>>

> >>>>> use

> >>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>> projecting

> >>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> what is

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> clearly

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Saptami

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> vibhakti and singular

>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

 

> > as

> >

> >>>>> being a

> >>>>>

> >>>>>>>> plural

> >>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>> word. If

> >>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Varga

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to be

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> used as

>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

 

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dvivachana it may

>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

 

> >>>>>>> become " VargyoH "

> >>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>> or " VargeSu "

> >>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> (for

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bahuvachan)

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and not

>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

 

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Varge. Perhaps some

>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

 

> >>> Sanskrit

> >>>

> >>>>>>>> scholar on

> >>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>> the

> >>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>> list

> >>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> like

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> comment

>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

 

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on this.

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So, much as I would

>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

 

> > like

> >

> >>> it to

> >>>

> >>>>>>>> resolve,

> >>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>> the

> >>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> issue

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> remains

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unresolved.

>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

 

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Chandrashekhar.

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Chandrashekhar.

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> vijayadas_pradeep

>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

 

> > wrote:

> >

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dear Chandrashekhar

>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

 

> > ji

> >

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I will give you a

>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

 

> >>> relevant

> >>>

> >>>>>>>> example to

> >>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>> explain

> >>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> how

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> VarGE

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> used in

>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

 

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> context of plural.

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Lagna Shad-VargaKE -

>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

 

> > Is

> >

> >>>>>>> pointing

> >>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>> to

> >>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>> all

> >>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> vargas -

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Plural.You

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> may

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> note

>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

 

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that the grammatical

>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

 

> >>> ending

> >>>

> >>>>> is

> >>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>> with ''E''

> >>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> showing

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> plurals

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> too can

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be

>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

 

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> expressed with such

>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

 

> > an

> >

> >>>>> ending.

> >>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Now from

>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

 

> >>> Vrishamsha''Ka''

> >>>

> >>>>> and

> >>>>>

> >>>>>>>> Tulamsha

> >>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> example we

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> conclude

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that

>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

 

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> VargaKA and VarGA

>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

 

> > can be

> >

> >>>>> used

> >>>>>

> >>>>>>> for

> >>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>> the

> >>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>> same

> >>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> purpose in

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ekavachan or

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> singular form and

>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

 

> >>> VargaKE

> >>>

> >>>>> and

> >>>>>

> >>>>>>>> VarGE

> >>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>> can be

> >>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> used

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bahuvachan or

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Plural form.

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I hope this may

>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

 

> > help us

> >

> >>> in

> >>>

> >>>>>>>> resolving

> >>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>> our

> >>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> issue.

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Respect

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Pradeep

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

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

>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

 

> > ----

> >

> >>> ----

> >>>

> >>>>> ---

> >>>>>

> >>>>>>> ---

> >>>>>>>

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

> >>>>>>>>

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

> >>>>>>>>>>

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

> >>>>>>>>>>>>

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

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>

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

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

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

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

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

>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

 

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No virus found in

>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

 

> > this

> >

> >>>>> incoming

> >>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>> message.

> >>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Checked by AVG Free

>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

 

> >>> Edition.

> >>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Version: 7.5.446 /

>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

 

> > Virus

> >

> >>>>>>> Database:

> >>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 269.10.0/886 -

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Release

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Date:

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 7/4/2007 1:40 PM

>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

 

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [Non-text portions of

>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

 

> > this

> >

> >>>>>>> message

> >>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>> have

> >>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>> been

> >>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> removed]

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

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

>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

 

> > ----

> >

> >>> ----

> >>>

> >>>>> ---

> >>>>>

> >>>>>>> ---

> >>>>>>>

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

> >>>>>>>>

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

> >>>>>>>>>>

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

> >>>>>>>>>>>>

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

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>

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

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

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

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

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

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No virus found in this

>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

 

> >>> incoming

> >>>

> >>>>>>>> message.

> >>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Checked by AVG Free

>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

 

> > Edition.

> >

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Version: 7.5.446 / Virus

>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

 

> >>>>> Database:

> >>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>> 269.10.0/886 -

> >>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Release

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Date:

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 7/4/2007 1:40 PM

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [Non-text portions of this

>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>> message

> >>>

> >>>>>>> have

> >>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>> been

> >>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> removed]

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>

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

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> > ----

> >

> >>> ----

> >>>

> >>>>> ---

> >>>>>

> >>>>>>> ---

> >>>>>>>

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

> >>>>>>>>

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

> >>>>>>>>>>

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

> >>>>>>>>>>>>

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

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>

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

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No virus found in this

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> > incoming

> >

> >>>>>>> message.

> >>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Version: 7.5.446 / Virus

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>> Database:

> >>>

> >>>>>>>>>> 269.10.0/886 -

> >>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Release

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Date:

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 7/4/2007 1:40 PM

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [Non-text portions of this

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> > message

> >

> >>>>> have

> >>>>>

> >>>>>>> been

> >>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>> removed]

> >>>>>>>>>>>>

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

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> > ----

> >

> >>> ----

> >>>

> >>>>> ---

> >>>>>

> >>>>>>> ---

> >>>>>>>

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

> >>>>>>>>

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

> >>>>>>>>>>

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

> >>>>>>>>>>>>

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

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No virus found in this incoming

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>> message.

> >>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Version: 7.5.446 / Virus

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> > Database:

> >

> >>>>>>>> 269.10.0/886 -

> >>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>> Release

> >>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Date:

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 7/4/2007 1:40 PM

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [Non-text portions of this message

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>> have

> >>>

> >>>>> been

> >>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>> removed]

> >>>>>>>>>>

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

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> > ----

> >

> >>> ----

> >>>

> >>>>> ---

> >>>>>

> >>>>>>> ---

> >>>>>>>

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

> >>>>>>>>

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

> >>>>>>>>>>

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

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No virus found in this incoming

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> > message.

> >

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database:

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>> 269.10.0/886 -

> >>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>> Release

> >>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Date:

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 7/4/2007 1:40 PM

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [Non-text portions of this message

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> > have

> >

> >>> been

> >>>

> >>>>>>>> removed]

> >>>>>>>>

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

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> > ----

> >

> >>> ----

> >>>

> >>>>> ---

> >>>>>

> >>>>>>> ---

> >>>>>>>

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

> >>>>>>>>

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

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database:

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>> 269.10.2/890 -

> >>>>>

> >>>>>>>> Release

> >>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>> Date:

> >>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 7/7/2007 3:26 PM

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [Non-text portions of this message have

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> > been

> >

> >>>>> removed]

> >>>>>

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

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> > ----

> >

> >>> ----

> >>>

> >>>>> ---

> >>>>>

> >>>>>>> ---

> >>>>>>>

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

> >>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database:

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>> 269.10.2/890 -

> >>>

> >>>>>>> Release

> >>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>> Date:

> >>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>> 7/7/2007 3:26 PM

> >>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>> [Non-text portions of this message have been

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>> removed]

> >>>

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

> >>>>>>>>>>>>

> > ----

> >

> >>> ----

> >>>

> >>>>> --

> >>>>>

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

> >>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>>> Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database:

> >>>>>>>>>>>>

> > 269.10.2/890 -

> >

> >>>>> Release

> >>>>>

> >>>>>>>> Date:

> >>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>> 7/7/2007 3:26 PM

> >>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>> [Non-text portions of this message have been

> >>>>>>>>>>>

> > removed]

> >

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

> >>>>>>>>>>

> > ----

> >

> >>> --

> >>>

> >>>>>>> ---

> >>>>>>>

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

> >>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>> Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.10.4/896 -

> >>>>>>>>>>

> >>> Release

> >>>

> >>>>>>> Date:

> >>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>> 7/11/2007 4:09 PM

> >>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>

[Guest guest]

Dear Chandrashekhar ji

 

You had brought in shubha grahas placed and aspecting karakamsha and

lagnamsha.Lagnamsha is one among the six vargas of lagna and hence

the relevance.

 

If aspects in general is not possible in varga charts(as drishties

emanate by longitudinal distances),then how will one interpret this

is the doubt.

 

When one follows the principls in dashdhyayi,when one follows the

principle in nadi transits,when one follows navamsha tulya -rashi

tulya -this shloka is not at all difficult to interpret.

 

Kindly see that Shukra and Saturn exchanging amshas and amsha of

birth Lagna(not shukra) in ghata rashi is mentioned.

 

Respect

Pradeep

 

 

, Chandrashekhar

<chandrashekhar46 wrote:

>

> Dear Pradeep,

>

> I can not understand the relevance of the shloka to the topic under

> discussion. The shloka does talk about graha drishti but then there

is

> more to the sphuta drishti than what the shloka conveys. But the

shloka

> does not certainly have t do anything with bhavas from karakamshas

> having to be sen in rasi chart, by itself.

>

> The shloka itself is clear enough to say that these are two

different

> yogas. Shukra and Shani can not simultaneously occupy each other's

> navamsha and also occupy the navamshas of Shani. However everyone

is

> free to his own interpretation.

>

>

> Chandrashekhar

> vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> >

> > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> >

> > The drishti mentioned in the concerned shloka is Graha drishti and

> > not Rashi drishti is the view of shri PVR Narasimha Rao.

> >

> > I would be glad to know about your view.This answer will certainly

> > help us.We are not all denying rashi drishti.Our concern is about

the

> > shloka under discussion.

> >

> > It was not my interpretation.Moreover,i personally do not feel

venus

> > and saturn in mutual amshas alone cannot effect in such a

result.The

> > whole set of conditions would make one so.For the same

> > reason,Dashadhyayi and Saravali is talking about a single

yoga,which

> > i feel as correct.If you think they are seperate,it is fine.

> >

> > Respect

> > Pradeep

> >

> >

> > <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > >

> > > Dear Pradeep,

> > >

> > > Why should Rashi drishtis be graded by Jaimini or Parashara? Any

> > reason?

> > > That " drishties are graded and not partial " , is the view of PVR?

> > Does he

> > > think that drishtis have t be graded for rashi drishti? I would

> > doubt that.

> > >

> > > It is no use insisting that only graded graha drishtis must be

> > > considered because one thinks that is right and throw out rashi

> > drishtis

> > > on the one hand and then go on and quote Jaimini when it suits

an

> > > argument on the other, or Parashara for that matter.

> > >

> > > By the way there is a difference between Sanmukha and Parshva

> > drishti in

> > > rashi drishti so you have classification within classification

that

> > you

> > > are seeking, right there, within the Rashi drishtis.

> > >

> > > I have already made my personal opinion clear and have no

reason to

> > > revise the same. At the same time, I do not think I am of an

> > elevated

> > > stature, in the realm of astrology, enough to say that what

other

> > > learned had said must be wrong if it does not coincide with my

> > views.

> > >

> > > Saravali does not state what is wrong, it is your

interpretation of

> > the

> > > shloka that is different from the " Kantimati " commentary

> > on " Saravali "

> > > that makes it so.

> > >

> > > Chandrashekhar.

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > >

> > > > I feel the drishtis are graded and not partial drishtis.Poorna

> > > > drishti is mentioned.

> > > >

> > > > Kindly help me with the shloka in BPHS or Jaimini sutra

pointing

> > to

> > > > grading o Rashi drishti.

> > > >

> > > > Shri PVR Rao has the same view.

> > > >

> > > > Now as it is graha drishti,and as you do not accept aspects

as a

> > rule

> > > > in general in varga chakras -how can this yoga happen is the

> > > > crux.This it will solve all our issues,unless you want to

change

> > your

> > > > opinion on graha drishtis within Varga chakra.Thus as far as

i am

> > > > concerned one answer from you will atleast enable both of us

to

> > reach

> > > > a conclusion.If you change your opinion then it is your view

and i

> > > > respect that.

> > > >

> > > > Now Trimishamsha shloka is ending(not chakra) bforeour shloka

and

> > > > sage is talking about aspect between planets,Lagna belonging

to

> > > > Shukra and Lagnas amsha falling within Ghata rashi and shukra

and

> > > > Saturn undergoing exchange in amsha.Do we need another

example to

> > see

> > > > how differen aspects are studied together.Where is Trimshamsha

> > chakra

> > > > here.If Saravali is wrong too,then i cannot say anything.

> > > >

> > > > Respect

> > > > Pradeep

> > > > -- In

> > <%40>

> > > > <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > >

> > > > > The partial drishtis are graded in different strengths in

the

> > > > shloka

> > > > > that you have quoted. I fail to see how the interpretation

of

> > this

> > > > > shloka puts an end to aspects in Vargas ,and how does it

prove

> > that

> > > > > rashi drishti is not to be considered as claimed by you.

> > > > >

> > > > > Why should the shubha grahas have only graded drishti and

not

> > Rashi

> > > > > drishti? There is nothing to support that premise in the

shlokas

> > > > from

> > > > > Brihat Jataka talking about aspects in Trimshamshas.

> > > > >

> > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > > >

> > > > > > I thought you were aware of where that shloka is from.

> > > > > > It is present in Rajayogadhyaya and came into picture

during

> > my

> > > > > > debate with shri PVR Rao.

> > > > > > This shloka was debated as ,interpretation of this shloka

will

> > > > bring

> > > > > > to end all doubts regarding vargamshas.

> > > > > > It is relevant to our discussion as you have mentioned

shubha

> > > > grahas

> > > > > > aspecting Lagnamsha,and lagnamsha i one among the

shadvargas

> > of

> > > > Lagna.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Now you may kindly say,how this has to be interpreted ,as

> > rashi

> > > > > > drishti is ruled out in this case.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > I have no problems with Rashi drishti.But as you see in

this

> > case

> > > > > > grades are being mentioned.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Regsrding the shlokas(navamsha/trimshamsha),i did not have

> > time

> > > > > > yesterday in the night.Thus i have posted you the

> > shlokas,withfull

> > > > > > explanation and refernces.Kindly see them.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Respect

> > > > > > Pradeep

> > > > > >

> > <%40>

> > > > <%40>

> > > > > > <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> > > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Do you mean to say that Parashara says that in

connection

> > with

> > > > > > > Meshaamshe etc.? I doubt that shloka exists in the

> > karakamsha

> > > > > > adhyaaya,

> > > > > > > but of course, I could be wrong.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > I asked you whether you accept the rashi drishtis that

are

> > > > > > mentioned by

> > > > > > > Parashara and Jaimini or not? If Dashaaadhyaayi

interprets

> > the

> > > > > > shlokas

> > > > > > > on navamsha and Trimshamshas from Brihat Jataka, why not

> > give

> > > > what

> > > > > > it says?

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > You have given your interpretation of how amshakas

should be

> > > > > > > interpreted, but failed to address the queries. May I

know

> > why?

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Purna drishte Purna Yogam Ardha Drishte ardhameva cha

> > > > > > > > Pada drishte Padayogamiti gyeyam kramat phalam.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Is mentioned and hence the aspects are not about Rashi

> > > > drishti.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Now as i have mentioned in the past,though the name is

> > > > > > > > dashadhyayi,the author covers shlokas,from most of the

> > > > chapters as

> > > > > > > > and when he finds some interrelationship or link.This

i

> > > > consider

> > > > > > as a

> > > > > > > > real blessing.Now how amshakas are interpreted,has

been

> > > > > > > > demonstrated ,for numerous contexts,and thus forming a

> > > > guideline

> > > > > > for

> > > > > > > > other shloka interpretations.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > I will see the shlokas,and will write back.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Respect

> > > > > > > > Pradeep

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > <%40>

> > > > <%40>

> > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > <%40>,

Chandrashekhar

> > > > > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Transits are to be seen no doubt from the rasis

> > synonymous

> > > > to

> > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > navamsha rasis, but when it is sphuta it is of the

> > > > navamshesha

> > > > > > and

> > > > > > > > not

> > > > > > > > > the rasis. There is a difference between the two.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > I have already said I do not consider aspects in D-

> > charts,

> > > > > > unless

> > > > > > > > > specifically mentioned in some yogas, and also that

> > barring

> > > > > > > > navamsha

> > > > > > > > > charts, in other varga charts I look at rashi

aspects.

> > That

> > > > does

> > > > > > > > not

> > > > > > > > > mean I should close my eyes to what is written in

other

> > > > > > respected

> > > > > > > > texts.

> > > > > > > > > That only means I look at charts from a different

angle.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > There is nothing in the lagna shadvargake shloka to

> > indicate

> > > > > > graded

> > > > > > > > > aspects and so it does not rule out rashi drishti at

> > all.

> > > > Ans

> > > > > > since

> > > > > > > > you

> > > > > > > > > have quoted both Parashara and Jaimini you should

know

> > that

> > > > > > rashi

> > > > > > > > > drishtis are valid in Parashara too and exclusively

so

> > in

> > > > > > Jaimini.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Your translation and mine of the shlokas differ and

> > that is

> > > > why

> > > > > > > > there is

> > > > > > > > > no agreement. If you expect Dashaadhyaayi to give

> > divisional

> > > > > > charts

> > > > > > > > and

> > > > > > > > > their interpretations, that is not possible as

Varaha

> > > > Mihira on

> > > > > > > > whose

> > > > > > > > > work it is only a commentary does not speak of it

and

> > it is

> > > > > > > > commentary

> > > > > > > > > on only 10 of the 18 adhayaayas of Brihat jataka.

If you

> > > > read

> > > > > > > > Brihat

> > > > > > > > > jataka carefully, you will see reference o aspects

in

> > > > > > Trimshamsha

> > > > > > > > there.

> > > > > > > > > Since you have many times claimed superiority of

> > > > Dashaadhyaayi

> > > > > > over

> > > > > > > > many

> > > > > > > > > of the more ancient and respected classics, I find

it

> > > > strange

> > > > > > as to

> > > > > > > > why

> > > > > > > > > you do not want to accept what is said in the

original

> > text

> > > > on

> > > > > > > > which

> > > > > > > > > Dashaadhyaayi is only a commentary and that too on

10

> > > > adhyaayas

> > > > > > as

> > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > name suggests (that does not, of course, make it any

> > less

> > > > > > > > respectable).

> > > > > > > > > There are many references to planets being placed

in a

> > > > navamsha,

> > > > > > > > which

> > > > > > > > > is not identical with the rasi whose name the

navamsha

> > > > enjoys,

> > > > > > and

> > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > results from them in the 21st adhyaaya. How do you

map

> > back

> > > > > > such a

> > > > > > > > > navamsha to the rasi and what should be the logic?

You

> > also

> > > > see

> > > > > > > > > reference to Guru occupying own Trimshamsha,

> > irrespective of

> > > > > > rasi

> > > > > > > > in the

> > > > > > > > > same adhayaaya. There are too many references like

this

> > to

> > > > > > question

> > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > theory that the amshas need always be mapped back to

> > > > identical

> > > > > > rasi

> > > > > > > > in

> > > > > > > > > rasi chart.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Could you tell why this reluctance to accept Varaha

> > Mihira?

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Meshamshe, Vrishamshe Transit results can be seen

from

> > > > Mesha

> > > > > > and

> > > > > > > > > > Vrishabha rashis.Thus you are aware of what i am

> > > > > > saying.Moreover

> > > > > > > > we

> > > > > > > > > > have seen paparkshe.we have seen meshadi rashige

> > > > swamshe.we

> > > > > > have

> > > > > > > > seen

> > > > > > > > > > that bhrigwonkaraka varge ,as per your

understanding

> > > > cannot

> > > > > > > > satisfy

> > > > > > > > > > both mars and venus.The very next shloka is

talking

> > about

> > > > > > mars and

> > > > > > > > > > venus yuti or aspecting.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Now we can forget all these as you are not

williing to

> > > > accept

> > > > > > > > > > rashi,riksha etc as valid reasoning.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > We have seen Lagna shadvargake shloka with

aspectual

> > > > > > > > grades,proving

> > > > > > > > > > that they ae not rashi drishtis.Couple of days

back

> > and

> > > > many

> > > > > > > > times in

> > > > > > > > > > the past,i have heard from you that you don't

support

> > > > aspects

> > > > > > in

> > > > > > > > > > Vargas.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > If you still have the sam views,then to understand

> > > > shadvargake

> > > > > > > > > > shloka,we have to see planets aspecting lagna

in ''six

> > > > > > charts''.As

> > > > > > > > > > lagna can fall in any rashi,you have to accept

aspects

> > > > fully

> > > > > > in

> > > > > > > > all

> > > > > > > > > > Varga charts.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > This is relevant to our discussion as lagnamsha is

> > also

> > > > part

> > > > > > of

> > > > > > > > > > shadvargas of lagna.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > As you are aware ,the BPHS translator too has

> > expressed

> > > > his

> > > > > > > > concern.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Regds

> > > > > > > > > > Pradeep

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > <%40>

> > > > <%40>

> > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > <%40>,

> > Chandrashekhar

> > > > > > > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > How could I think shadvarga of lagna is

shadvarga of

> > > > rashi?

> > > > > > > > Lagna

> > > > > > > > > > is the

> > > > > > > > > > > point on the eastern horizon at the time of

birth

> > of a

> > > > > > jataka.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > There is no dispute about what is lagnamsha and

> > what is

> > > > > > > > karakamsha

> > > > > > > > > > at

> > > > > > > > > > > all. At the same time when reference is to a

graha

> > > > falling

> > > > > > in

> > > > > > > > > > Lagnamsha

> > > > > > > > > > > it refers to the navamsha rasi (or sector ruled

by

> > one

> > > > of

> > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > rasis

> > > > > > > > > > of a

> > > > > > > > > > > planet, barring Sun and Chandra if you like it

that

> > > > way) in

> > > > > > > > which

> > > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > lagnamsha falls. Now that being so where is the

> > shubha

> > > > graha

> > > > > > > > > > supposed to

> > > > > > > > > > > fall in the shloka I quoted? Same with the Shubh

> > graha

> > > > in

> > > > > > > > > > Karakamsha and

> > > > > > > > > > > needing drishti of shubha graha on it. It is

easy

> > to say

> > > > > > that

> > > > > > > > > > these

> > > > > > > > > > > need to be seen in rasi, but for lack of the

> > reference

> > > > to

> > > > > > rasi,

> > > > > > > > > > there,

> > > > > > > > > > > there is no reason to assume that it does not

refer

> > to

> > > > > > navamsha

> > > > > > > > > > rasi.

> > > > > > > > > > > The reference to grahas

> > > > in " Meshaamshe " , " Vrishabhaamshe "

> > > > > > etc

> > > > > > > > are

> > > > > > > > > > quite

> > > > > > > > > > > clear, in BPHS.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Take care,

> > > > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > Of course Yes,you are correct.Varga is found

for

> > this

> > > > > > bindu

> > > > > > > > and in

> > > > > > > > > > > > the case of planets their degree decides.The

rest

> > you

> > > > have

> > > > > > > > stated

> > > > > > > > > > is

> > > > > > > > > > > > also as per definition.My point was made

under the

> > > > > > impression

> > > > > > > > that

> > > > > > > > > > > > you have a view that,shadvarga of Lagna is

> > shadvarga

> > > > of a

> > > > > > > > > > rashi.If so

> > > > > > > > > > > > it is not.Shad varga is found for Lagna bindu.

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > The full Rashi/Kshethra in which Lagna bindu

falls

> > > > > > becomes its

> > > > > > > > > > first

> > > > > > > > > > > > Varga.

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > The Translation is entiterely correct and no

one

> > can

> > > > > > > > > > contradict.This

> > > > > > > > > > > > is similar to one planet aspecting shadvargas

of

> > > > lagna.

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > Lagnamsha is already covered in the

shadvargas of

> > > > > > > > > > lagna.Karakamsha is

> > > > > > > > > > > > similar too.

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > Now let us see it on a chart.Karkamasha is in

> > > > > > Dhanu.Jupiter is

> > > > > > > > > > placed

> > > > > > > > > > > > in Mithuna Rashi.Shubha graha is aspecting

> > Karakamsha

> > > > > > Lagna

> > > > > > > > > > > > (Rashi).Similarly Lagnamsha.

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > You are already aware of the rules for

aspects.

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > Respect

> > > > > > > > > > > > Pradeep

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > <%40>

> > > > <%40>

> > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > > <%40>,

> > > > Chandrashekhar

> > > > > > > > > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > I see your point of view. anyway even within

> > > > shadvargas

> > > > > > we

> > > > > > > > look

> > > > > > > > > > for

> > > > > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > degree of a planet falling within a certain

> > span of

> > > > > > degrees

> > > > > > > > and

> > > > > > > > > > not

> > > > > > > > > > > > one

> > > > > > > > > > > > > particular bindu.

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > I agree that rashi is a Varga and my

question

> > is if

> > > > one

> > > > > > can

> > > > > > > > > > look at

> > > > > > > > > > > > > aspects in one Varga why not in other

Vargas? I

> > am

> > > > sure

> > > > > > you

> > > > > > > > know

> > > > > > > > > > > > that

> > > > > > > > > > > > > personally I use navamsha to find only the

> > strength

> > > > of

> > > > > > > > grahas,

> > > > > > > > > > but

> > > > > > > > > > > > there

> > > > > > > > > > > > > is no reason to rule out aspects in

Navamshas or

> > > > other

> > > > > > > > charts

> > > > > > > > > > > > totally.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > One of the raj yogas mentioned by Parashara

> > talks of

> > > > > > aspect

> > > > > > > > of

> > > > > > > > > > > > shubha

> > > > > > > > > > > > > grahas on the karakamsha and Lagnamsha which

> > should

> > > > > > also be

> > > > > > > > > > > > tenanted by

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Shubha grahas, leaving no doubt as to where

the

> > > > aspects

> > > > > > are

> > > > > > > > to

> > > > > > > > > > be

> > > > > > > > > > > > seen.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > And for the record the translation to that

> > effect

> > > > is by

> > > > > > an

> > > > > > > > > > eminent

> > > > > > > > > > > > > astrologer who was Professor of astrology in

> > Banaras

> > > > > > Hindu

> > > > > > > > > > > > University.

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Take care,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Lagna as a bindu was mentioned for driving

> > home

> > > > the

> > > > > > > > shadvarga

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > calculations,if any members were having

> > doubts.For

> > > > > > > > shadvarga

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > calculation of planets too we need the

bindu

> > or

> > > > > > degree of

> > > > > > > > a

> > > > > > > > > > planet

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > within a rashi, as you are aware.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > We have to look at Rashis.This is so

because

> > Rashi

> > > > > > (one 30

> > > > > > > > > > degree

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > sector ) is the first varga.As this Varga

is

> > > > > > synonymous

> > > > > > > > with

> > > > > > > > > > Bhava

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > houses are analysed w.r to Rashis.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Respect

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pradeep

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > <%40>

> > > > <%40>

> > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > <%40>,

> > > > > > Chandrashekhar

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If lagna is a bindu a you propose, and

> > nothing

> > > > more,

> > > > > > > > then

> > > > > > > > > > how

> > > > > > > > > > > > can

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > it

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > indicate an entire rasi? Now if this is

> > > > correct, and

> > > > > > > > > > technically

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > it is,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > then by your reckoning there is no need

to

> > look

> > > > at

> > > > > > rasis

> > > > > > > > > > too. Is

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > that

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > what you mean to say?

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If shadvargas are not related to the

portion

> > > > > > falling in

> > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > lagna

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > rasis,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > which holds the degree of lagna Madhya,

> > then it

> > > > > > appears

> > > > > > > > we

> > > > > > > > > > must

> > > > > > > > > > > > ask

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sages to redefine Vargas. I doubt they

need

> > our

> > > > > > advise.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Take care,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There was a purpose.I just wanted to

> > explain

> > > > it

> > > > > > to the

> > > > > > > > > > > > members if

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > some of them are not sure on what

> > shadvarga of

> > > > > > lagna

> > > > > > > > is

> > > > > > > > > > and

> > > > > > > > > > > > how it

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is calculated.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As you have said Vargas are divisions

of a

> > > > > > rashi.But

> > > > > > > > > > > > shadvargas of

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Lagna is not the Vargas falling in

> > Lagna.Here

> > > > > > lagna is

> > > > > > > > > > not a

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > rashi,but a bindu.Vargas are found

from a

> > > > > > degree.The

> > > > > > > > > > degree

> > > > > > > > > > > > of a

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > planet or degree of lagna.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As you may know we do notneed six

charts

> > to

> > > > > > dtermine

> > > > > > > > > > > > shadvargas of

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > lagna.All we need is the degree of

lagna

> > and

> > > > the

> > > > > > rashi

> > > > > > > > > > rising.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Let us take an example.Lagna is at 11

> > degrees

> > > > in

> > > > > > > > dhanu.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Let us find the shadvargas of Lagna

with

> > th

> > > > help

> > > > > > of

> > > > > > > > rising

> > > > > > > > > > > > rashi

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > and

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > degree.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1st Varga - The Rashi in which Lagna

> > bindu is

> > > > > > > > falling -

> > > > > > > > > > Dhanu

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2nd Varga - The Hora in which Lagna

bindu

> > is

> > > > > > falling -

> > > > > > > > As

> > > > > > > > > > 11

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > degrees

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > falls in the 1st half of dhanu - Surya

> > Hora

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 3rd Varga - The drekkana in which

Lagna

> > bindu

> > > > is

> > > > > > > > falling -

> > > > > > > > > > As

> > > > > > > > > > > > 11

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > degrees falls in the 2nd 1/3rd of

dhanu -

> > > > > > Drekkana is

> > > > > > > > > > Mesha.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 4th Varga - As 11 degrees falls in

the 3rd

> > > > > > > > > > saptamsha ,Lagna

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > saptamsha

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is Kumbha.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Similraly - Lagna navamsha is

Karka,Lagna

> > > > > > Trimshamsha

> > > > > > > > is

> > > > > > > > > > > > dhanu.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thus the purpose of whole exercise

was to

> > say

> > > > that

> > > > > > > > when

> > > > > > > > > > we say

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > shadvargas of Lagna or Mars,it does

not

> > mean

> > > > the

> > > > > > > > rashis

> > > > > > > > > > owned

> > > > > > > > > > > > by

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Lagna or Mars.But the Rashis on

towhich

> > they

> > > > are

> > > > > > > > > > placed,having

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > hora,drekkana etc etc.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Vargas of Mars in the 2nd Rashi from

> > > > karakamsha

> > > > > > too

> > > > > > > > is no

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > differet.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There are many meanings,that is why

Rashi

> > is

> > > > > > called as

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Kshethra /Riksha /havana etc.But i

don't

> > think

> > > > > > sage

> > > > > > > > will

> > > > > > > > > > use

> > > > > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > saword to represent something

belonging to

> > > > same

> > > > > > class.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > For example sage will not use ''sva''

to

> > mean

> > > > 2nd

> > > > > > as

> > > > > > > > well

> > > > > > > > > > as

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 3rd.Then

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we cannot interpret.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Similarly Rashi and navamsha will not

be

> > > > > > represented

> > > > > > > > > > using the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > same

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

word.Rashi/Kshethra/Riksha/Bhvana/Lagna

> > etc

> > > > are

> > > > > > > > synonyms

> > > > > > > > > > an

> > > > > > > > > > > > ifthey

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > are used for navamsha then what is the

> > whole

> > > > > > purpose

> > > > > > > > > > behind

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > defintion.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On the other hand sva was used for

iems

> > from

> > > > > > different

> > > > > > > > > > > > classes.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This wasin mind while making such a

> > > > statement.I

> > > > > > will

> > > > > > > > try

> > > > > > > > > > my

> > > > > > > > > > > > best

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > to

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > polish my style of writing.I accept my

> > > > > > limitations in

> > > > > > > > > > writing.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Respect

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pradeep

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > <%40>

> > > > <%40>

> > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <%

40>,

> > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I have not understood your question

or

> > the

> > > > > > intent

> > > > > > > > behind

> > > > > > > > > > > > that.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > The

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Vargas are divisions, within a rasi,

> > ruled

> > > > by

> > > > > > > > different

> > > > > > > > > > > > grahas.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > So

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > if

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > one wants t look at Vargas falling

in

> > lagna

> > > > the

> > > > > > shad

> > > > > > > > > > Vargas

> > > > > > > > > > > > will

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mean

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the rasi equivalent occurring at

lagna

> > > > position

> > > > > > in

> > > > > > > > the 6

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > divisional

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > charts of Rashi, Hora, Dreshkana,

> > Navamsha,

> > > > > > > > > > Dwaadashamsha

> > > > > > > > > > > > and

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Trimshamsha. Or at least this is

what I

> > have

> > > > > > learnt.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sages did not use words in vain or

> > context.

> > > > I

> > > > > > > > agree. But

> > > > > > > > > > > > that

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > does

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > not

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mean they used the words to mean

only

> > one

> > > > thing

> > > > > > > > always.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I never said that the meaning can be

> > > > changed to

> > > > > > > > suit our

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > convenience and

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I would request you not to attribute

> > such

> > > > > > > > sentiments to

> > > > > > > > > > me.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > However I do say that word are used

in

> > > > different

> > > > > > > > > > contexts to

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > mean

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > different things, especially in

Sanskrit

> > > > texts

> > > > > > of

> > > > > > > > > > Jyotish. I

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > have,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > just

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > a few minutes back use of " Sva " with

> > > > different

> > > > > > > > meaning

> > > > > > > > > > at

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > different

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > places by Varaha Mihira to you. I

hope

> > you

> > > > do

> > > > > > not

> > > > > > > > also

> > > > > > > > > > > > attribute

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > words that you attributed to me to

the

> > > > venerated

> > > > > > > > Varaha

> > > > > > > > > > > > Mihira.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Take care,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar,.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pls tell me what you mean by

> > shadvargas of

> > > > > > > > lagna.How

> > > > > > > > > > do

> > > > > > > > > > > > you

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > find

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > them.Do you go by ownership or

> > placement

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (Rashi/navamsha/dwadshamsha

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > etc).

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There are shlokas in Varahamihiras

> > text

> > > > which

> > > > > > > > > > > > says ,Okarkshe

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Purushamshakae.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Which means in Ojarashi and Oja

amsha.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As per me sages will not use any

words

> > > > out of

> > > > > > > > > > context.If

> > > > > > > > > > > > he

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > wants

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > say amsha he will mention it.He

will

> > not

> > > > use

> > > > > > > > Rashi to

> > > > > > > > > > > > mean as

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > amsha.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ojarkshe is Oja Rashi.Similarly

> > Paparkshe

> > > > is

> > > > > > Papa

> > > > > > > > > > Rashi.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If you want to say as per our

> > conveninece

> > > > we

> > > > > > can

> > > > > > > > > > change

> > > > > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > meaning

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of riksha/rashi/bhavana/bhavas as

> > navamsha

> > > > > > then i

> > > > > > > > > > cannot

> > > > > > > > > > > > say

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > anything.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I can only respect your views.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Respect

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pradeep

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In

 

> > <%40>

> > > > <%40>

> > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <%

40>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <%

> > 40>,

> > > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I will tell you why that

happens.

> > You

> > > > begin

> > > > > > with

> > > > > > > > > > quoting

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Parashara

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > then give a sutra from Jaimini

as

> > being

> > > > > > said by

> > > > > > > > > > > > Parashara.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Interpretation of sutras is not

the

> > > > easiest

> > > > > > of

> > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > things,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > more

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > so

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Jaimini's Upadesha sutras. That

the

> > > > sutras

> > > > > > use

> > > > > > > > > > > > KaTaPaYaadi

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > encryption

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > makes them even more difficult

to

> > > > > > interpret. I

> > > > > > > > am

> > > > > > > > > > sure

> > > > > > > > > > > > you

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > have

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > noticed

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > this when Sreenadh interpreted

the

> > > > > > KaTaPaYaadi

> > > > > > > > > > Varga in

> > > > > > > > > > > > a

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrong

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fashion.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Then there is your insistence

to let

> > > > > > Sanskrit

> > > > > > > > > > grammar

> > > > > > > > > > > > give

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > a go

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > by

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > if

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that can make interpretation of

a

> > > > shloka or

> > > > > > > > sutra

> > > > > > > > > > fit

> > > > > > > > > > > > your

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > proposition.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Any of the Shodasha Vargas of a

rasi

> > > > can be

> > > > > > > > > > referred to

> > > > > > > > > > > > as

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Varga,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > but as

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > far as I know in astrology,

when one

> > > > talks

> > > > > > of

> > > > > > > > Varga,

> > > > > > > > > > > > without

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > qualifying

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it, or Amshas that generally

refers

> > to

> > > > > > navamsha

> > > > > > > > or

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dwadashaamsha.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Another reason that we can not

> > agree, or

> > > > > > seem to

> > > > > > > > > > agree,

> > > > > > > > > > > > is

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > that

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > you are

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > reluctant to call a navamsha by

the

> > > > > > nomenclature

> > > > > > > > > > > > navamsha

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > rasi.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > makes it difficult to convey

what I

> > > > mean to

> > > > > > say

> > > > > > > > in

> > > > > > > > > > > > English

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > as

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the language of the net and

which

> > both

> > > > of us

> > > > > > > > know.

> > > > > > > > > > Now

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > since you

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > do not

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > want to use the word Mesha

navamsha

> > as

> > > > > > Mesha is

> > > > > > > > a

> > > > > > > > > > rashi

> > > > > > > > > > > > and

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > by

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > your

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > logic it can not be a navamsha,

it

> > > > becomes

> > > > > > > > > > difficult to

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > convey

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > what I

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > understand by the texts.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I will like to draw your

attention

> > to

> > > > the

> > > > > > > > literal

> > > > > > > > > > > > meaning

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > of the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > word

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > rasi. It means a heap and

nothing

> > more.

> > > > In

> > > > > > > > astrology

> > > > > > > > > > > > since

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > it

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > encompasses many stars that

make up

> > a

> > > > > > nakshatra

> > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > 1/12th

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > division of

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the zodiac is called a Rasi. Or

at

> > least

> > > > > > this

> > > > > > > > is my

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > understanding

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > reason of using the word rasi

for

> > the

> > > > 1/12th

> > > > > > > > > > division

> > > > > > > > > > > > of the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > zodiac.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I do not agree that by Chandra

in

> > Guru

> > > > > > Varga it

> > > > > > > > is

> > > > > > > > > > meant

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > that

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Varga of

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Chandra is being seen. To me we

are

> > > > talking

> > > > > > > > about is

> > > > > > > > > > > > whether

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Chandra is

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > falling in the Varga of Guru in

> > which

> > > > ever

> > > > > > rasi

> > > > > > > > he

> > > > > > > > > > is

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > occupying.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So in

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Navamsha we see whether Chandra

is

> > > > occupying

> > > > > > > > Pisces

> > > > > > > > > > or

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sagittarius

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > navamsha. I also do not agree

that

> > > > there are

> > > > > > > > Vargas

> > > > > > > > > > of

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Chandra

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > or

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of any

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > planet for that matter. The 16

> > Vargas

> > > > that

> > > > > > > > Parashara

> > > > > > > > > > > > talks

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > about

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > are

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that of a Rasi, beginning from

the

> > Rashi

> > > > > > itself.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If the Vargas are not owned by

> > different

> > > > > > > > planets,

> > > > > > > > > > pray

> > > > > > > > > > > > why

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > does

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the sage

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > tell us to see occupation of a

> > friend,

> > > > own

> > > > > > etc.

> > > > > > > > > > Varga to

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > assess

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > strength of a planet in the

Varga

> > > > concerned?

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I have interacted with many

> > astrologers

> > > > of

> > > > > > > > > > yesteryears

> > > > > > > > > > > > (with

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > respect to

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > my age group) and have never

found

> > them

> > > > > > > > claiming the

> > > > > > > > > > > > Vargas

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > to

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > only lagna and planets.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If you insist that sage

Parashara

> > gave

> > > > the

> > > > > > SU.

> > > > > > > > 52.-

> > > > > > > > > > > > " Tatra

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > bhrigwongaraka

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > varge paradarikaha " , perhaps

you

> > are

> > > > > > referring

> > > > > > > > to

> > > > > > > > > > some

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > edition

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > BPHS

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that I do not have. However I do

> > have

> > > > that

> > > > > > in

> > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > umpteen

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > different

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > texts on Jaimini that I do have

in

> > my

> > > > > > library.

> > > > > > > > And

> > > > > > > > > > by

> > > > > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > way,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > some

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > scholars have interpreted that

to

> > mean

> > > > 9th

> > > > > > from

> > > > > > > > > > > > Karakamsha

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > and

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > not

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the 2nd.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I do not agree that a graha can

> > > > > > simultaneously

> > > > > > > > > > occupy

> > > > > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Varga

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > both

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Venus and Mars, simultaneously,

as

> > is

> > > > being

> > > > > > > > > > suggested

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > whether in

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > rasi or

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in any of the Vargas. It could

only

> > > > occupy

> > > > > > one

> > > > > > > > or

> > > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > other.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I have seen you arguing in

favor of

> > > > looking

> > > > > > at

> > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Shadvargas of

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > grahas Venus and Mars. I would

like

> > you

> > > > to

> > > > > > look

> > > > > > > > at

> > > > > > > > > > all

> > > > > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > six

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > charts

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > whose Vargas together are

referred

> > as

> > > > > > > > Shadvargas and

> > > > > > > > > > > > try to

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > find

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > out

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > whether they do indeed contain

the 6

> > > > Vargas

> > > > > > of

> > > > > > > > Venus

> > > > > > > > > > > > and 6

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Vargas

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > or

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mars. I am sure that you will

find

> > them

> > > > to

> > > > > > > > contain

> > > > > > > > > > only

> > > > > > > > > > > > 5

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Vargas

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > each of

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the grahas. Once you confirm

this by

> > > > > > looking at

> > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > 6

> > > > > > > > > > > > Vargas

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > your

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > self,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > tell me how one can look at

> > Shadvargas

> > > > of

> > > > > > Venus

> > > > > > > > or

> > > > > > > > > > Mars

> > > > > > > > > > > > as

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > is

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > being

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > suggested to be the

interpretation

> > of

> > > > the

> > > > > > sutra

> > > > > > > > that

> > > > > > > > > > > > you are

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > referring to.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You may also be interested to

know

> > that

> > > > > > > > Parashara

> > > > > > > > > > talks

> > > > > > > > > > > > of

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > AK

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > falling in

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the Varga of Chandra, Mars or

Venus

> > also

> > > > > > having

> > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > roving

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > eye

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > on

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > others

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wives. So the combination of

Venus

> > and

> > > > Mars

> > > > > > > > being

> > > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > only

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > one

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > giving

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the roving eye for other's

wives,

> > that

> > > > you

> > > > > > are

> > > > > > > > > > > > advancing as

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > a

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > standalone

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > principle, may not,

necessarily, be

> > the

> > > > way

> > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > sage

> > > > > > > > > > > > looked

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > at

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > their

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > interpretation.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Take care,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Those were written by me.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I am very dissappointed to see

> > > > > > that ,inspite

> > > > > > > > of

> > > > > > > > > > > > repeating

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > numerus

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > times,you are unable to get

what

> > i am

> > > > > > saying.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I am not talking about rashis

> > lorded

> > > > by

> > > > > > > > shukra or

> > > > > > > > > > Mars

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > here.I

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > am

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > talking about the shadvargas

> > vargas of

> > > > > > mars

> > > > > > > > and

> > > > > > > > > > > > shukra.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pls tell me what is the

meaning of

> > > > > > shadvargas

> > > > > > > > or

> > > > > > > > > > > > simply

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Varga

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > lagna.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It is the rashi in which

lagna is

> > > > > > placed.The

> > > > > > > > > > > > navamshaka of

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Lagna,Trimshamshaka of Lagna

> > etc.Can

> > > > we

> > > > > > see

> > > > > > > > any

> > > > > > > > > > > > lordship

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > as

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > you

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > say.Lagna does not own any

rashi.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Similarly when we say vargas

of

> > > > Venus -It

> > > > > > > > means

> > > > > > > > > > Rashi

> > > > > > > > > > > > of

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > Venus,Hora,navamshaka,drekkana,trimshamshaka

> > > > > > > > etc.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Shadvarga is never the rashi

> > owned by

> > > > a

> > > > > > > > > > planet.Then

> > > > > > > > > > > > Lagna

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > can

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > never

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > have shadvarga.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On the other hand if we

> > say,Chandra in

> > > > > > Guru

> > > > > > > > > > Varga - We

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > are not

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > seeing

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the shadvarga of Guru,but

that of

> > > > > > chandra.Is

> > > > > > > > > > chandra

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > placed in

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Guru

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Rashi?Is Chandra navamshaka in

> > Guru

> > > > > > Rashi.Is

> > > > > > > > > > Chandra

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Trimshamshaka in

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Guru Rashi etc is what we

> > check.If so

> > > > > > chandras

> > > > > > > > > > vargas

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > fall in

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > guru

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > rashis or we say chandra is in

> > > > guruvargas.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > For the same reason schoplars

of

> > > > > > yesteryears

> > > > > > > > > > always

> > > > > > > > > > > > say

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Vargas

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > are

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > for our natal Lagna and

Planets.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On the other hand you are

taking

> > them

> > > > as

> > > > > > > > owned by

> > > > > > > > > > a

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > planet.Every

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > shadvarga that derive is like

> > > > that.You may

> > > > > > > > check

> > > > > > > > > > this

> > > > > > > > > > > > with

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > shri

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Narasimha,how he is deriving

it

> > for

> > > > his

> > > > > > > > software.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > For the same reason Bhrigu and

> > Angara

> > > > can

> > > > > > have

> > > > > > > > > > Varga

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > together

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Rashi which is 2nd from

> > > > Karakamsha.Sage

> > > > > > > > clearly

> > > > > > > > > > talks

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > about

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > vargas from both.Moreover the

next

> > > > shloka

> > > > > > is

> > > > > > > > > > talking

> > > > > > > > > > > > about

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mars

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Venus together or aspecting

the

> > 2nd

> > > > from

> > > > > > > > > > karakamsha.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On the other hand if we go by

your

> > > > > > > > explanation,we

> > > > > > > > > > > > have to

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > opt

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > for

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > just one among shukra or Mars

> > which

> > > > is not

> > > > > > > > > > > > proper.Their

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Joint

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > influence creates sexual

drive.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I request you to kindly read

this

> > with

> > > > > > care.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Rspect

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pradeep

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In

> > <%

40>

> > > > <%40>

> > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <%

40>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <%

> > 40>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <%

> > > > 40>,

> > > > > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The below remarks are not

from

> > my

> > > > mail

> > > > > > at

> > > > > > > > all.

> > > > > > > > > > I do

> > > > > > > > > > > > not

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > know

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > why

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > you

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > think I would write that. I

am

> > sure

> > > > you

> > > > > > know

> > > > > > > > > > that

> > > > > > > > > > > > this

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > is

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > not

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > my

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > style

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of writing at all.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > " >From my experience -Mars +

> > Venus

> > > > > > creates

> > > > > > > > > > certin

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > behaviour.I

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > feel

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > you

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > too would have experienced

> > this.Why

> > > > are

> > > > > > you

> > > > > > > > > > going

> > > > > > > > > > > > for

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > varga

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > owned by

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > just one of them and that

too

> > > > without a

> > > > > > > > > > planetary

> > > > > > > > > > > > link

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > is

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > really

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > worrying me.Shri Rath has

> > translated

> > > > > > so,i

> > > > > > > > > > agree.But

> > > > > > > > > > > > i

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > have

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > an

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > inner feeling that Shri Rath

> > will

> > > > > > definitely

> > > > > > > > > > correct

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > this

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > for

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > benfit

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of jyotish community. "

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As to why I said they could

not

> > be

> > > > > > having

> > > > > > > > their

> > > > > > > > > > > > Vargas

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > together in

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > one

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > rasi or Bhava does not need

any

> > > > deeper

> > > > > > > > > > explanation.

> > > > > > > > > > > > If

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > you

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > are

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > looking

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > at the 2nd from Karakamsha

in

> > the

> > > > rasi

> > > > > > > > chart,

> > > > > > > > > > as you

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > think

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > right, you

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > could not have both Mesha

and

> > > > Vrishabha

> > > > > > or

> > > > > > > > Tula

> > > > > > > > > > and

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Vrishchika

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > rasi

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2nd from the Karakamsha, is

that

> > > > not so?

> > > > > > > > > > Similarly

> > > > > > > > > > > > if in

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > navamsha

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > chart

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the 2nd from Karakamsha is

to be

> > > > seen,

> > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > 2nd

> > > > > > > > > > > > could be

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > not

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > both

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > navamshas.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Take care,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I though you meant

so.Because

> > in

> > > > > > > > subsequent

> > > > > > > > > > lines

> > > > > > > > > > > > we

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > can

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > see

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Swamsha

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and Karakamsha being used

for

> > the

> > > > same

> > > > > > > > > > > > purpose.But if

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > you

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > think

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > there are other places

where

> > > > swamsha

> > > > > > is

> > > > > > > > used

> > > > > > > > > > for

> > > > > > > > > > > > say

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Lagnamsha ,then

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > i can trust you if you can

> > point

> > > > me to

> > > > > > > > that.

> > > > > > > > > > This

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > should

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > not

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be a

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > problem and in no way it

will

> > > > affect

> > > > > > us.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Venus and Mars can

ofcourse

> > have

> > > > their

> > > > > > > > Vargas

> > > > > > > > > > in a

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > single

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > rashi or

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bhava.Venus can have

navamsha

> > > > > > there,Mars

> > > > > > > > can

> > > > > > > > > > have

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > navamsha

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > there,Venus can have

> > Trimshamsha

> > > > > > > > there,Mars

> > > > > > > > > > can

> > > > > > > > > > > > have

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Trimshamsha

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > there,they both can have

> > drekkana

> > > > > > there

> > > > > > > > etc

> > > > > > > > > > etc.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thus sage is talking about

> > Bhrigu

> > > > and

> > > > > > > > Angara

> > > > > > > > > > both

> > > > > > > > > > > > (as

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > you

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > have

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > identified gramattically)

> > having

> > > > varga

> > > > > > > > there

> > > > > > > > > > and

> > > > > > > > > > > > it is

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > very

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > much

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > possible.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If you note the next

line -

> > Sage is

> > > > > > talking

> > > > > > > > > > about

> > > > > > > > > > > > both

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Venus

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mars

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > joining or aspecting the

2nd

> > from

> > > > > > > > Karakamsha.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >From my experience -Mars

+

> > Venus

> > > > > > creates

> > > > > > > > > > certin

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > behaviour.I

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > feel

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > you

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > too would have experienced

> > > > this.Why

> > > > > > are

> > > > > > > > you

> > > > > > > > > > going

> > > > > > > > > > > > for

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > varga

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > owned by just one of them

and

> > > > that too

> > > > > > > > > > without a

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > planetary

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > link is

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > really worrying me.Shri

Rath

> > has

> > > > > > > > translated

> > > > > > > > > > so,i

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > agree.But i

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > have

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > an

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > inner feeling that Shri

Rath

> > will

> > > > > > > > definitely

> > > > > > > > > > > > correct

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > this

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > for the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > benfit of jyotish

community.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I am surprised as to why

you

> > say

> > > > > > so.That

> > > > > > > > they

> > > > > > > > > > > > cannot

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > have

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > together.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Respect

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pardeep

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In

> > > >

> > <%40> <%

> > 40>

> > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <%

40>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <%

> > 40>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <%

> > > > 40>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <%

> > > > > > 40>,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I have never said that

I do

> > not

> > > > > > think

> > > > > > > > that

> > > > > > > > > > > > Swamsha

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > and

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Karakamsha

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > are

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > different where the

context

> > > > demands

> > > > > > so.

> > > > > > > > At

> > > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > same

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > time I

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > do

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > not

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > think

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > grammar can be put to

rest

> > to

> > > > in the

> > > > > > > > name of

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > context,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > without

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > some

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sound

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > reason.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Of course if you want

> > contextual

> > > > > > > > translation

> > > > > > > > > > > > only,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > then

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > one can

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > certainly say that

> > the " Meshadi

> > > > > > raashige

> > > > > > > > > > > > swaamshe "

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > can

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > always be

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > translated as " Falling

in

> > Mesha

> > > > > > > > navamsha in

> > > > > > > > > > > > Mesha

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > rasi

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > etc. " .

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > By the way " Tatra

> > > > Bhrigwonkaraka

> > > > > > > > Varge " ,

> > > > > > > > > > that

> > > > > > > > > > > > you

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mention, does

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > not

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mean varga of both

Venus and

> > > > mars,

> > > > > > but

> > > > > > > > of

> > > > > > > > > > varga

> > > > > > > > > > > > of

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Venus OR

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mars,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > due to

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the grammar only. varga

of

> > two

> > > > > > planets

> > > > > > > > can

> > > > > > > > > > not

> > > > > > > > > > > > fall

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > in

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > one

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > bhava/amsha/rasi

whether in

> > > > rasi or

> > > > > > > > > > Navamsha or

> > > > > > > > > > > > any

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > other

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > chart.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Take care,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Grammatically,what

you are

> > > > saying

> > > > > > is

> > > > > > > > also

> > > > > > > > > > > > true.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But Jyotish defintions

> > play a

> > > > > > > > preceding

> > > > > > > > > > role

> > > > > > > > > > > > in

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > choosing

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > grammatical meaning.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > For example one

meaning of

> > > > > > > > labhe ,Swamshe

> > > > > > > > > > etc

> > > > > > > > > > > > is

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > in

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 11th

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > swamsha etc.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But if we go by that

we

> > will

> > > > > > > > definitely

> > > > > > > > > > > > translate

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > swamshe in

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > meshadi

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > rashige as ''in

> > > > Swamsha'',thereby

> > > > > > > > > > translating

> > > > > > > > > > > > it

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > as

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > one

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > full

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > chart.This as you too

> > > > agree,then

> > > > > > > > cannot

> > > > > > > > > > pass

> > > > > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > test,of

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > subsequent shlokas.I

> > > > understand

> > > > > > gladly

> > > > > > > > > > that

> > > > > > > > > > > > you

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > too

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > agree that

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > swamsha and karakamsha

> > are the

> > > > > > same.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So the context decides

> > > > > > plural/singular

> > > > > > > > > > and not

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > necessarily

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the ''E''

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as you have rightly

> > mentioned.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But in essence what i

> > want to

> > > > say

> > > > > > > > is ''E''

> > > > > > > > > > > > does

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > not

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > always

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mean ''in

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the'' as you have

> > > > > > > > interpreted.Labheshe is

> > > > > > > > > > an

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > example.Karake

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is an

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > example.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thus it can very well

mean

> > > > Varga

> > > > > > of

> > > > > > > > > > Shukra and

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mars-

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > which can

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > then be

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > six vargas or one

varga.

> > (Not

> > > > > > lordship)

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Tatra Bhrigwonkaraka

> > Varge -

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Tatra -(There) In the

> > second

> > > > from

> > > > > > > > > > Karakamsha

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Varga or Vargas of

Venus

> > and

> > > > Mars

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Now why should we

need two

> > > > > > > > qualifiesrs for

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > destination

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (1)

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2nd

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > from karakamsha 2)in

the

> > > > vargas

> > > > > > of?)-

> > > > > > > > if

> > > > > > > > > > we had

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > another

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > planet

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > then

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > your interpretation is

> > > > right.That

> > > > > > > > planet

> > > > > > > > > > will

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > answer

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > question -

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > who is in the vargas

of ?

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Similarly - Swamshad

dhane

> > > > Shukrar

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Swamshad dhane is

already

> > > > > > pointing to

> > > > > > > > > > > > destination-

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > why

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > should

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > need

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > another ''in the''

vargas

> > of.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On the other hand if

we

> > say in

> > > > > > the 2nd

> > > > > > > > > > from

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > karakamsha if

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > varga

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mars and venus are

> > present,it

> > > > > > fits in

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > grammatically.Moreover

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > i had

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mentioned rashi

lordship

> > > > without

> > > > > > > > planetary

> > > > > > > > > > > > link

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (placement/amsha

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > etc)

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is too general.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Respect

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pradeep

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In

> > > > > >

> > <%40>

> > > > <%40> <%

> > > > 40>

> > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <%

40>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <%

> > 40>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <%

> > > > 40>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <%

> > > > > > 40>

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <%

> > > > > > > > 40>,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <chandrashekhar46@>

wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I may be wrong but

> > the " E "

> > > > by

> > > > > > itself

> > > > > > > > > > does

> > > > > > > > > > > > not

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > point

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > plural.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > word Shadvarga

> > indicating 6

> > > > > > Vargas

> > > > > > > > that

> > > > > > > > > > is

> > > > > > > > > > > > one

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > group

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (though it

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > contains

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > more than one unit)

and

> > > > > > so " Varge " ,

> > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > singular is

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > used

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > " E " means " in " . I

would

> > be

> > > > > > happy if

> > > > > > > > an

> > > > > > > > > > > > example

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of " Varge "

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > being

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > plural

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > can be given.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I do not at all

think

> > that

> > > > > > Vargaka

> > > > > > > > or

> > > > > > > > > > Varga

> > > > > > > > > > > > is

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > singular and

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Vargake

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > or

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Varge is plural, at

all.

> > > > Both

> > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > manner of

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > using

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > word

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > only

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > indicates singular.

it

> > is

> > > > no use

> > > > > > > > > > projecting

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > what is

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > clearly

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Saptami

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > vibhakti and

singular as

> > > > being a

> > > > > > > > plural

> > > > > > > > > > > > word. If

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Varga

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to be

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > used as

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > dvivachana it may

> > > > > > become " VargyoH "

> > > > > > > > > > > > or " VargeSu "

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > (for

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > bahuvachan)

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and not

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Varge. Perhaps some

> > Sanskrit

> > > > > > > > scholar on

> > > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > list

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > would

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > like

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > comment

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > on this.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So, much as I would

> > like it

> > > > to

> > > > > > > > resolve,

> > > > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > issue

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > remains

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > unresolved.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep

wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear

Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I will give you a

> > relevant

> > > > > > > > example to

> > > > > > > > > > > > explain

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > how

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > VarGE

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > can

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > used in

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > context of plural.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Lagna Shad-

VargaKE -

> > Is

> > > > > > pointing

> > > > > > > > to

> > > > > > > > > > all

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > vargas -

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Plural.You

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > may

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > note

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that the

grammatical

> > > > ending is

> > > > > > > > > > with ''E''

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > showing

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > plurals

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > too can

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > expressed with

such an

> > > > ending.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Now from

> > Vrishamsha''Ka''

> > > > and

> > > > > > > > Tulamsha

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > example we

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > can

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > conclude

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > VargaKA and VarGA

can

> > be

> > > > used

> > > > > > for

> > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > same

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > purpose in

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ekavachan or

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > singular form and

> > VargaKE

> > > > and

> > > > > > > > VarGE

> > > > > > > > > > can be

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > used

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > for

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bahuvachan or

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Plural form.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I hope this may

help

> > us in

> > > > > > > > resolving

> > > > > > > > > > our

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > issue.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Respect

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pradeep

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

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

----

> > ----

> > > > ----

> > > > > > ----

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No virus found in

this

> > > > > > incoming

> > > > > > > > > > message.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Checked by AVG

Free

> > > > Edition.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Version: 7.5.446 /

> > Virus

> > > > > > Database:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 269.10.0/886 -

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Release

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Date:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 7/4/2007 1:40 PM

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions

of

> > this

> > > > > > message

> > > > > > > > have

> > > > > > > > > > been

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > removed]

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

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

----

> > ----

> > > > ----

> > > > > > ----

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No virus found in this

> > > > incoming

> > > > > > > > message.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Checked by AVG Free

> > Edition.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Version: 7.5.446 /

Virus

> > > > Database:

> > > > > > > > > > > > 269.10.0/886 -

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Release

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Date:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 7/4/2007 1:40 PM

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of

this

> > > > message

> > > > > > have

> > > > > > > > been

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > removed]

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

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

----

> > ----

> > > > ----

> > > > > > ----

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

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

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

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

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

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No virus found in this

> > incoming

> > > > > > message.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Checked by AVG Free

Edition.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Version: 7.5.446 / Virus

> > Database:

> > > > > > > > > > 269.10.0/886 -

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Release

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Date:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 7/4/2007 1:40 PM

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this

> > message

> > > > have

> > > > > > been

> > > > > > > > > > > > removed]

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

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

----

> > ----

> > > > ----

> > > > > > ----

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

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

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

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

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No virus found in this

incoming

> > > > message.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Version: 7.5.446 / Virus

Database:

> > > > > > > > 269.10.0/886 -

> > > > > > > > > > > > Release

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Date:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 7/4/2007 1:40 PM

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this

message

> > have

> > > > been

> > > > > > > > > > removed]

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

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

----

> > ----

> > > > ----

> > > > > > ----

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

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

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

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No virus found in this incoming

> > message.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database:

> > > > > > 269.10.0/886 -

> > > > > > > > > > Release

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Date:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 7/4/2007 1:40 PM

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message

have

> > been

> > > > > > > > removed]

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

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

----

> > ----

> > > > ----

> > > > > > ----

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

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

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No virus found in this incoming

message.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database:

> > > > 269.10.2/890 -

> > > > > > > > Release

> > > > > > > > > > > > Date:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 7/7/2007 3:26 PM

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have

been

> > > > > > removed]

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

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

----

> > ----

> > > > ----

> > > > > > ----

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

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database:

> > 269.10.2/890 -

> > > > > > Release

> > > > > > > > > > Date:

> > > > > > > > > > > > 7/7/2007 3:26 PM

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been

> > > > removed]

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > >

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

----

> > ----

> > > > ----

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

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database:

269.10.2/890 -

> > > > Release

> > > > > > > > Date:

> > > > > > > > > > 7/7/2007 3:26 PM

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been

> > removed]

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

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

----

> > ----

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

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.10.4/896 -

> > Release

> > > > > > Date:

> > > > > > > > 7/11/2007 4:09 PM

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been

removed]

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

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

----

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

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Version: 7.5.476 / Virus Database: 269.10.4/898 -

Release

> > > > Date:

> > > > > > 7/12/2007 4:08 PM

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

[Guest guest]

Dear Pradeep,

 

Think about it, if Bhattotpala can be wrong then so can be the

Dashaadhyaayikar. Is there is any reason that he can not be if

Bhattotpala can be wrong?

 

Chandrashekhar.

 

vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

>

> Dear Chandrashekhar ji

>

> Dashadhayayi is not a classic and my view was it is more than a mere

> commentary as it has clear explanations,while thinking from a

> students perspective.

>

> As you know,inspite of having all those commentaries,you were having

> a view of trimshamsha chakra,which is a concern for me.Similarly

> there were couple of other shlokas that you have quoted as examples.

>

> Thus i feel Bhatotpala might have been misunderstood(inadvertently)

> by some or it can be your view about those translations.Bhatotpala

> cannot be wrong is my stron conviction.

>

> The sanskrit shlokas from dashadhyayi were quoted by me,for example

> cases of kemadruma,which clearly explains leaving no ambiguity.I

> cannot think jeevasharma,Gargi,Sruthakeerthi etc will make the same

> mistake.

>

> Thus i was talking about Sanskrit explanations and not

> malayalam.Sanskrit to Malayalam translation is pretty straight

> forward due to many similarities.

>

> I will give all my views with more clarity.

>

> Respect

> Pradeep

>

>

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Dear Pradeep,

 

I have not understood why only principles of Dashaadhyaayi are to be

followed and also whether the Dashaadhyaayikar has given any principles,

or if the text is a commentary on Brihat jataka. Do you mean that the

Dashaadhyaayikar has given certain principles from which the yogas given

in Brihat Jataka emanate? If this is so, it may help the astrological

fraternity much. Do post the principles given. I am also curious to know

as to how the Dashaaadhyaayikar explains, Kalyanvarma not mentioning

anything about Rahu and Ketu in " Saravali " , since according to one of

your posts, if I have understood it right, he gives references from

Saravali during his interpretation of Brihat Jataka. It would really be

interesting to know what his principles say about Brihat jataka giving

yogas emanating from relative position of rahu and Ketu vis-a-vis

Saravali not even mentioning those shadow planets.

 

I look forward to the opinion of Dashaadhyaayikar on this difference

between Brihat jataka and Saravali. I am sure the readers will learn

much from the comments.

 

Take care,

Chandrashekhar.

 

vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

>

> Dear Chandrashekhar ji

>

> You had brought in shubha grahas placed and aspecting karakamsha and

> lagnamsha.Lagnamsha is one among the six vargas of lagna and hence

> the relevance.

>

> If aspects in general is not possible in varga charts(as drishties

> emanate by longitudinal distances),then how will one interpret this

> is the doubt.

>

> When one follows the principls in dashdhyayi,when one follows the

> principle in nadi transits,when one follows navamsha tulya -rashi

> tulya -this shloka is not at all difficult to interpret.

>

> Kindly see that Shukra and Saturn exchanging amshas and amsha of

> birth Lagna(not shukra) in ghata rashi is mentioned.

>

> Respect

> Pradeep

>

>

>

> <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> <chandrashekhar46 wrote:

> >

> > Dear Pradeep,

> >

> > I can not understand the relevance of the shloka to the topic under

> > discussion. The shloka does talk about graha drishti but then there

> is

> > more to the sphuta drishti than what the shloka conveys. But the

> shloka

> > does not certainly have t do anything with bhavas from karakamshas

> > having to be sen in rasi chart, by itself.

> >

> > The shloka itself is clear enough to say that these are two

> different

> > yogas. Shukra and Shani can not simultaneously occupy each other's

> > navamsha and also occupy the navamshas of Shani. However everyone

> is

> > free to his own interpretation.

> >

> >

> > Chandrashekhar

> > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > >

>

>

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Dear Chandrashekhar ji

 

Pls read again.I have said Bhatotpala Cannot be wrong is my strong

conviction.You might have misread it in haste.

 

Respect

Pradeep

 

 

-- In , Chandrashekhar

<chandrashekhar46 wrote:

>

> Dear Pradeep,

>

> Think about it, if Bhattotpala can be wrong then so can be the

> Dashaadhyaayikar. Is there is any reason that he can not be if

> Bhattotpala can be wrong?

>

> Chandrashekhar.

>

> vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> >

> > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> >

> > Dashadhayayi is not a classic and my view was it is more than a

mere

> > commentary as it has clear explanations,while thinking from a

> > students perspective.

> >

> > As you know,inspite of having all those commentaries,you were

having

> > a view of trimshamsha chakra,which is a concern for me.Similarly

> > there were couple of other shlokas that you have quoted as

examples.

> >

> > Thus i feel Bhatotpala might have been misunderstood

(inadvertently)

> > by some or it can be your view about those translations.Bhatotpala

> > cannot be wrong is my stron conviction.

> >

> > The sanskrit shlokas from dashadhyayi were quoted by me,for

example

> > cases of kemadruma,which clearly explains leaving no ambiguity.I

> > cannot think jeevasharma,Gargi,Sruthakeerthi etc will make the

same

> > mistake.

> >

> > Thus i was talking about Sanskrit explanations and not

> > malayalam.Sanskrit to Malayalam translation is pretty straight

> > forward due to many similarities.

> >

> > I will give all my views with more clarity.

> >

> > Respect

> > Pradeep

> >

> >

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Dear Chandrashekhar ji

 

Regarding principles,yes there are many detailed

explanations.Navaprana -Navamsha Link is an example for basics.Atma

following Mana and Paraspara ashryatwa of Atma-Mana in Jyotish is

another.It is vast.

 

If you can give me the shloka and chapter - relative reference from

rahu-ketu,i can check.

 

Respect

Pradeep

 

, Chandrashekhar

<chandrashekhar46 wrote:

>

> Dear Pradeep,

>

> I have not understood why only principles of Dashaadhyaayi are to

be

> followed and also whether the Dashaadhyaayikar has given any

principles,

> or if the text is a commentary on Brihat jataka. Do you mean that

the

> Dashaadhyaayikar has given certain principles from which the yogas

given

> in Brihat Jataka emanate? If this is so, it may help the

astrological

> fraternity much. Do post the principles given. I am also curious

to know

> as to how the Dashaaadhyaayikar explains, Kalyanvarma not

mentioning

> anything about Rahu and Ketu in " Saravali " , since according to one

of

> your posts, if I have understood it right, he gives references

from

> Saravali during his interpretation of Brihat Jataka. It would

really be

> interesting to know what his principles say about Brihat jataka

giving

> yogas emanating from relative position of rahu and Ketu vis-a-vis

> Saravali not even mentioning those shadow planets.

>

> I look forward to the opinion of Dashaadhyaayikar on this

difference

> between Brihat jataka and Saravali. I am sure the readers will

learn

> much from the comments.

>

> Take care,

> Chandrashekhar.

>

> vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> >

> > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> >

> > You had brought in shubha grahas placed and aspecting karakamsha

and

> > lagnamsha.Lagnamsha is one among the six vargas of lagna and

hence

> > the relevance.

> >

> > If aspects in general is not possible in varga charts(as

drishties

> > emanate by longitudinal distances),then how will one interpret

this

> > is the doubt.

> >

> > When one follows the principls in dashdhyayi,when one follows the

> > principle in nadi transits,when one follows navamsha tulya -rashi

> > tulya -this shloka is not at all difficult to interpret.

> >

> > Kindly see that Shukra and Saturn exchanging amshas and amsha of

> > birth Lagna(not shukra) in ghata rashi is mentioned.

> >

> > Respect

> > Pradeep

> >

> >

> >

> > <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > >

> > > Dear Pradeep,

> > >

> > > I can not understand the relevance of the shloka to the topic

under

> > > discussion. The shloka does talk about graha drishti but then

there

> > is

> > > more to the sphuta drishti than what the shloka conveys. But

the

> > shloka

> > > does not certainly have t do anything with bhavas from

karakamshas

> > > having to be sen in rasi chart, by itself.

> > >

> > > The shloka itself is clear enough to say that these are two

> > different

> > > yogas. Shukra and Shani can not simultaneously occupy each

other's

> > > navamsha and also occupy the navamshas of Shani. However

everyone

> > is

> > > free to his own interpretation.

> > >

> > >

> > > Chandrashekhar

> > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > >

> >

> >

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Dear Pradeep,

 

Okay, let me put it in your words. As you said " Bhattotpala might have

been misunderstood (inadvertently) by some or it can be your view about

those translations. " Why should not Dashaadhyaayikar not have been

misunderstood (inadvertently) by some or it can be your views about

those translations? Any reason for the immunity? We have already sen

misinterpretation of KaTaPaYaaDi rules by one scholar on this very list,

not so long ago.

 

Chandrashekhar.

 

 

 

vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

>

> Dear Chandrashekhar ji

>

> Pls read again.I have said Bhatotpala Cannot be wrong is my strong

> conviction.You might have misread it in haste.

>

> Respect

> Pradeep

>

> -- In

> <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> <chandrashekhar46 wrote:

> >

> > Dear Pradeep,

> >

> > Think about it, if Bhattotpala can be wrong then so can be the

> > Dashaadhyaayikar. Is there is any reason that he can not be if

> > Bhattotpala can be wrong?

> >

> > Chandrashekhar.

> >

> > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > >

> > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > >

> > > Dashadhayayi is not a classic and my view was it is more than a

> mere

> > > commentary as it has clear explanations,while thinking from a

> > > students perspective.

> > >

> > > As you know,inspite of having all those commentaries,you were

> having

> > > a view of trimshamsha chakra,which is a concern for me.Similarly

> > > there were couple of other shlokas that you have quoted as

> examples.

> > >

> > > Thus i feel Bhatotpala might have been misunderstood

> (inadvertently)

> > > by some or it can be your view about those translations.Bhatotpala

> > > cannot be wrong is my stron conviction.

> > >

> > > The sanskrit shlokas from dashadhyayi were quoted by me,for

> example

> > > cases of kemadruma,which clearly explains leaving no ambiguity.I

> > > cannot think jeevasharma,Gargi,Sruthakeerthi etc will make the

> same

> > > mistake.

> > >

> > > Thus i was talking about Sanskrit explanations and not

> > > malayalam.Sanskrit to Malayalam translation is pretty straight

> > > forward due to many similarities.

> > >

> > > I will give all my views with more clarity.

> > >

> > > Respect

> > > Pradeep

> > >

> > >

> >

> >

> >

[Guest guest]

Dear Pradeep,

 

Why not give the reason or principle given behind any of the yogas given

in Brihat jataka, that Dashaadhyaayikar has given the astrological

principle for?

 

Why not give opinion of the Dashaadhyaayikar on the anomaly that

Saravali that he quotes, does not consider Rahu and Ketu, whereas Brihat

jataka does. I am sure he must have given his opinion on what he

considers right and why.

 

Chandrashekhar.

 

vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

>

> Dear Chandrashekhar ji

>

> Regarding principles,yes there are many detailed

> explanations.Navaprana -Navamsha Link is an example for basics.Atma

> following Mana and Paraspara ashryatwa of Atma-Mana in Jyotish is

> another.It is vast.

>

> If you can give me the shloka and chapter - relative reference from

> rahu-ketu,i can check.

>

> Respect

> Pradeep

>

>

> <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> <chandrashekhar46 wrote:

> >

> > Dear Pradeep,

> >

> > I have not understood why only principles of Dashaadhyaayi are to

> be

> > followed and also whether the Dashaadhyaayikar has given any

> principles,

> > or if the text is a commentary on Brihat jataka. Do you mean that

> the

> > Dashaadhyaayikar has given certain principles from which the yogas

> given

> > in Brihat Jataka emanate? If this is so, it may help the

> astrological

> > fraternity much. Do post the principles given. I am also curious

> to know

> > as to how the Dashaaadhyaayikar explains, Kalyanvarma not

> mentioning

> > anything about Rahu and Ketu in " Saravali " , since according to one

> of

> > your posts, if I have understood it right, he gives references

> from

> > Saravali during his interpretation of Brihat Jataka. It would

> really be

> > interesting to know what his principles say about Brihat jataka

> giving

> > yogas emanating from relative position of rahu and Ketu vis-a-vis

> > Saravali not even mentioning those shadow planets.

> >

> > I look forward to the opinion of Dashaadhyaayikar on this

> difference

> > between Brihat jataka and Saravali. I am sure the readers will

> learn

> > much from the comments.

> >

> > Take care,

> > Chandrashekhar.

> >

> > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > >

> > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > >

> > > You had brought in shubha grahas placed and aspecting karakamsha

> and

> > > lagnamsha.Lagnamsha is one among the six vargas of lagna and

> hence

> > > the relevance.

> > >

> > > If aspects in general is not possible in varga charts(as

> drishties

> > > emanate by longitudinal distances),then how will one interpret

> this

> > > is the doubt.

> > >

> > > When one follows the principls in dashdhyayi,when one follows the

> > > principle in nadi transits,when one follows navamsha tulya -rashi

> > > tulya -this shloka is not at all difficult to interpret.

> > >

> > > Kindly see that Shukra and Saturn exchanging amshas and amsha of

> > > birth Lagna(not shukra) in ghata rashi is mentioned.

> > >

> > > Respect

> > > Pradeep

> > >

> > >

> > >

> <%40>

> > > <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > >

> > > > I can not understand the relevance of the shloka to the topic

> under

> > > > discussion. The shloka does talk about graha drishti but then

> there

> > > is

> > > > more to the sphuta drishti than what the shloka conveys. But

> the

> > > shloka

> > > > does not certainly have t do anything with bhavas from

> karakamshas

> > > > having to be sen in rasi chart, by itself.

> > > >

> > > > The shloka itself is clear enough to say that these are two

> > > different

> > > > yogas. Shukra and Shani can not simultaneously occupy each

> other's

> > > > navamsha and also occupy the navamshas of Shani. However

> everyone

> > > is

> > > > free to his own interpretation.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Chandrashekhar

> > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > >

> > >

> > >

> >

> >

> >

[Guest guest]

Dear Chandrashekhar ji

 

For the same reason i had provided the very Sanskrit shloka from

Dashadhyayikara regarding kemadruma etc.Similarly if you can give

sanskrit verses from Bhatotpala and hindi from Sitaram jha ,issue is

closed.

 

Respect

Pradeep

, Chandrashekhar

<chandrashekhar46 wrote:

>

> Dear Pradeep,

>

> Okay, let me put it in your words. As you said " Bhattotpala might

have

> been misunderstood (inadvertently) by some or it can be your view

about

> those translations. " Why should not Dashaadhyaayikar not have been

> misunderstood (inadvertently) by some or it can be your views about

> those translations? Any reason for the immunity? We have already

sen

> misinterpretation of KaTaPaYaaDi rules by one scholar on this very

list,

> not so long ago.

>

> Chandrashekhar.

>

>

>

> vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> >

> > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> >

> > Pls read again.I have said Bhatotpala Cannot be wrong is my strong

> > conviction.You might have misread it in haste.

> >

> > Respect

> > Pradeep

> >

> > -- In

> > <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > >

> > > Dear Pradeep,

> > >

> > > Think about it, if Bhattotpala can be wrong then so can be the

> > > Dashaadhyaayikar. Is there is any reason that he can not be if

> > > Bhattotpala can be wrong?

> > >

> > > Chandrashekhar.

> > >

> > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > >

> > > > Dashadhayayi is not a classic and my view was it is more than

a

> > mere

> > > > commentary as it has clear explanations,while thinking from a

> > > > students perspective.

> > > >

> > > > As you know,inspite of having all those commentaries,you were

> > having

> > > > a view of trimshamsha chakra,which is a concern for

me.Similarly

> > > > there were couple of other shlokas that you have quoted as

> > examples.

> > > >

> > > > Thus i feel Bhatotpala might have been misunderstood

> > (inadvertently)

> > > > by some or it can be your view about those

translations.Bhatotpala

> > > > cannot be wrong is my stron conviction.

> > > >

> > > > The sanskrit shlokas from dashadhyayi were quoted by me,for

> > example

> > > > cases of kemadruma,which clearly explains leaving no

ambiguity.I

> > > > cannot think jeevasharma,Gargi,Sruthakeerthi etc will make the

> > same

> > > > mistake.

> > > >

> > > > Thus i was talking about Sanskrit explanations and not

> > > > malayalam.Sanskrit to Malayalam translation is pretty straight

> > > > forward due to many similarities.

> > > >

> > > > I will give all my views with more clarity.

> > > >

> > > > Respect

> > > > Pradeep

> > > >

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

[Guest guest]

Dear Chandrashekhar ji

 

If you give any specific shloka in mind or any reference regarding

Rahu/Ketu i can check the corresponding one and see how the

explanation has been made.

 

Respect

Pradeep

, Chandrashekhar

<chandrashekhar46 wrote:

>

> Dear Pradeep,

>

> Why not give the reason or principle given behind any of the yogas

given

> in Brihat jataka, that Dashaadhyaayikar has given the astrological

> principle for?

>

> Why not give opinion of the Dashaadhyaayikar on the anomaly that

> Saravali that he quotes, does not consider Rahu and Ketu, whereas

Brihat

> jataka does. I am sure he must have given his opinion on what he

> considers right and why.

>

> Chandrashekhar.

>

> vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> >

> > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> >

> > Regarding principles,yes there are many detailed

> > explanations.Navaprana -Navamsha Link is an example for

basics.Atma

> > following Mana and Paraspara ashryatwa of Atma-Mana in Jyotish is

> > another.It is vast.

> >

> > If you can give me the shloka and chapter - relative reference

from

> > rahu-ketu,i can check.

> >

> > Respect

> > Pradeep

> >

> >

> > <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > >

> > > Dear Pradeep,

> > >

> > > I have not understood why only principles of Dashaadhyaayi are

to

> > be

> > > followed and also whether the Dashaadhyaayikar has given any

> > principles,

> > > or if the text is a commentary on Brihat jataka. Do you mean

that

> > the

> > > Dashaadhyaayikar has given certain principles from which the

yogas

> > given

> > > in Brihat Jataka emanate? If this is so, it may help the

> > astrological

> > > fraternity much. Do post the principles given. I am also curious

> > to know

> > > as to how the Dashaaadhyaayikar explains, Kalyanvarma not

> > mentioning

> > > anything about Rahu and Ketu in " Saravali " , since according to

one

> > of

> > > your posts, if I have understood it right, he gives references

> > from

> > > Saravali during his interpretation of Brihat Jataka. It would

> > really be

> > > interesting to know what his principles say about Brihat jataka

> > giving

> > > yogas emanating from relative position of rahu and Ketu vis-a-

vis

> > > Saravali not even mentioning those shadow planets.

> > >

> > > I look forward to the opinion of Dashaadhyaayikar on this

> > difference

> > > between Brihat jataka and Saravali. I am sure the readers will

> > learn

> > > much from the comments.

> > >

> > > Take care,

> > > Chandrashekhar.

> > >

> > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > >

> > > > You had brought in shubha grahas placed and aspecting

karakamsha

> > and

> > > > lagnamsha.Lagnamsha is one among the six vargas of lagna and

> > hence

> > > > the relevance.

> > > >

> > > > If aspects in general is not possible in varga charts(as

> > drishties

> > > > emanate by longitudinal distances),then how will one interpret

> > this

> > > > is the doubt.

> > > >

> > > > When one follows the principls in dashdhyayi,when one follows

the

> > > > principle in nadi transits,when one follows navamsha tulya -

rashi

> > > > tulya -this shloka is not at all difficult to interpret.

> > > >

> > > > Kindly see that Shukra and Saturn exchanging amshas and amsha

of

> > > > birth Lagna(not shukra) in ghata rashi is mentioned.

> > > >

> > > > Respect

> > > > Pradeep

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > <%40>

> > > > <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > >

> > > > > I can not understand the relevance of the shloka to the

topic

> > under

> > > > > discussion. The shloka does talk about graha drishti but

then

> > there

> > > > is

> > > > > more to the sphuta drishti than what the shloka conveys. But

> > the

> > > > shloka

> > > > > does not certainly have t do anything with bhavas from

> > karakamshas

> > > > > having to be sen in rasi chart, by itself.

> > > > >

> > > > > The shloka itself is clear enough to say that these are two

> > > > different

> > > > > yogas. Shukra and Shani can not simultaneously occupy each

> > other's

> > > > > navamsha and also occupy the navamshas of Shani. However

> > everyone

> > > > is

> > > > > free to his own interpretation.

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > Chandrashekhar

> > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

[Guest guest]

Dear Pradeep,

 

When you do not accept the Sanskrit shlokas from Brihat jataka, which

Dashaadhyaayikar comments upon, let apart BPHS, what purpose can be

served by giving the voluminous comments of Bhattotpala in Sanskrit?

Unlike Dashaadhyaayi (if you really gave the entire shlokas) Bhattotpala

goes into explanation of each word in the shloka and then gives his

opinion of what he understands Varaha Mihira to have meant by that

shloka. I had already given the English translation of what both

Bhattotpala and Sitaram Jha said in earlier mails. If you go through our

voluminous correspondence, you will certainly get the same.

 

Chandrashekhar.

 

vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

>

> Dear Chandrashekhar ji

>

> For the same reason i had provided the very Sanskrit shloka from

> Dashadhyayikara regarding kemadruma etc.Similarly if you can give

> sanskrit verses from Bhatotpala and hindi from Sitaram jha ,issue is

> closed.

>

> Respect

> Pradeep

>

> <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> <chandrashekhar46 wrote:

> >

> > Dear Pradeep,

> >

> > Okay, let me put it in your words. As you said " Bhattotpala might

> have

> > been misunderstood (inadvertently) by some or it can be your view

> about

> > those translations. " Why should not Dashaadhyaayikar not have been

> > misunderstood (inadvertently) by some or it can be your views about

> > those translations? Any reason for the immunity? We have already

> sen

> > misinterpretation of KaTaPaYaaDi rules by one scholar on this very

> list,

> > not so long ago.

> >

> > Chandrashekhar.

> >

> >

> >

> > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > >

> > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > >

> > > Pls read again.I have said Bhatotpala Cannot be wrong is my strong

> > > conviction.You might have misread it in haste.

> > >

> > > Respect

> > > Pradeep

> > >

> > > -- In

> <%40>

> > > <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > >

> > > > Think about it, if Bhattotpala can be wrong then so can be the

> > > > Dashaadhyaayikar. Is there is any reason that he can not be if

> > > > Bhattotpala can be wrong?

> > > >

> > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > >

> > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > >

> > > > > Dashadhayayi is not a classic and my view was it is more than

> a

> > > mere

> > > > > commentary as it has clear explanations,while thinking from a

> > > > > students perspective.

> > > > >

> > > > > As you know,inspite of having all those commentaries,you were

> > > having

> > > > > a view of trimshamsha chakra,which is a concern for

> me.Similarly

> > > > > there were couple of other shlokas that you have quoted as

> > > examples.

> > > > >

> > > > > Thus i feel Bhatotpala might have been misunderstood

> > > (inadvertently)

> > > > > by some or it can be your view about those

> translations.Bhatotpala

> > > > > cannot be wrong is my stron conviction.

> > > > >

> > > > > The sanskrit shlokas from dashadhyayi were quoted by me,for

> > > example

> > > > > cases of kemadruma,which clearly explains leaving no

> ambiguity.I

> > > > > cannot think jeevasharma,Gargi,Sruthakeerthi etc will make the

> > > same

> > > > > mistake.

> > > > >

> > > > > Thus i was talking about Sanskrit explanations and not

> > > > > malayalam.Sanskrit to Malayalam translation is pretty straight

> > > > > forward due to many similarities.

> > > > >

> > > > > I will give all my views with more clarity.

> > > > >

> > > > > Respect

> > > > > Pradeep

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

[Guest guest]

Dear Chandrashekhar ji

 

You may check with some of your friends on the detailed level of

explanation in Dashadhyayi.As you might have noted with bHATTOTPALA,

it will be difficult for me to quote explantions spanning pages.

 

Now i would love to know if Bhattotpala has mentioned any Trimshamsha

chakra.Or was that your view.Bhattotpala can never say so.

 

Respect

Pradeep

 

 

, Chandrashekhar

<chandrashekhar46 wrote:

>

> Dear Pradeep,

>

> When you do not accept the Sanskrit shlokas from Brihat jataka,

which

> Dashaadhyaayikar comments upon, let apart BPHS, what purpose can be

> served by giving the voluminous comments of Bhattotpala in

Sanskrit?

> Unlike Dashaadhyaayi (if you really gave the entire shlokas)

Bhattotpala

> goes into explanation of each word in the shloka and then gives his

> opinion of what he understands Varaha Mihira to have meant by that

> shloka. I had already given the English translation of what both

> Bhattotpala and Sitaram Jha said in earlier mails. If you go

through our

> voluminous correspondence, you will certainly get the same.

>

> Chandrashekhar.

>

> vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> >

> > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> >

> > For the same reason i had provided the very Sanskrit shloka from

> > Dashadhyayikara regarding kemadruma etc.Similarly if you can give

> > sanskrit verses from Bhatotpala and hindi from Sitaram jha ,issue

is

> > closed.

> >

> > Respect

> > Pradeep

> >

> > <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > >

> > > Dear Pradeep,

> > >

> > > Okay, let me put it in your words. As you said " Bhattotpala might

> > have

> > > been misunderstood (inadvertently) by some or it can be your

view

> > about

> > > those translations. " Why should not Dashaadhyaayikar not have

been

> > > misunderstood (inadvertently) by some or it can be your views

about

> > > those translations? Any reason for the immunity? We have already

> > sen

> > > misinterpretation of KaTaPaYaaDi rules by one scholar on this

very

> > list,

> > > not so long ago.

> > >

> > > Chandrashekhar.

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > >

> > > > Pls read again.I have said Bhatotpala Cannot be wrong is my

strong

> > > > conviction.You might have misread it in haste.

> > > >

> > > > Respect

> > > > Pradeep

> > > >

> > > > -- In

> > <%40>

> > > > <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > >

> > > > > Think about it, if Bhattotpala can be wrong then so can be

the

> > > > > Dashaadhyaayikar. Is there is any reason that he can not be

if

> > > > > Bhattotpala can be wrong?

> > > > >

> > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > >

> > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Dashadhayayi is not a classic and my view was it is more

than

> > a

> > > > mere

> > > > > > commentary as it has clear explanations,while thinking

from a

> > > > > > students perspective.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > As you know,inspite of having all those commentaries,you

were

> > > > having

> > > > > > a view of trimshamsha chakra,which is a concern for

> > me.Similarly

> > > > > > there were couple of other shlokas that you have quoted as

> > > > examples.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Thus i feel Bhatotpala might have been misunderstood

> > > > (inadvertently)

> > > > > > by some or it can be your view about those

> > translations.Bhatotpala

> > > > > > cannot be wrong is my stron conviction.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > The sanskrit shlokas from dashadhyayi were quoted by

me,for

> > > > example

> > > > > > cases of kemadruma,which clearly explains leaving no

> > ambiguity.I

> > > > > > cannot think jeevasharma,Gargi,Sruthakeerthi etc will

make the

> > > > same

> > > > > > mistake.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Thus i was talking about Sanskrit explanations and not

> > > > > > malayalam.Sanskrit to Malayalam translation is pretty

straight

> > > > > > forward due to many similarities.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > I will give all my views with more clarity.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Respect

> > > > > > Pradeep

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

[Guest guest]

Dear Pradeep,

 

Had I had access to Dashaadhyaayi, I would not have troubled you with

all these queries. If you say that you did not reproduce the comments

given by Dashaadhyaayikar and only the gist of what he says, does it

mean you have given the comments selectively?

 

Did I say in any of my mails that Bhattotpala said anything about

Trimshamsha Chakra? And does Dashaadhyaayikar, specifically, says that

no other chart than rasi chart exists in astrology as you are implying?

I would doubt he could say so. If you read 9th shloka of 21st adhyaaya

of Brihat jataka your doubt about navamsha drishti would perhaps be

clarified, should you accept it to mean what it does.

 

As I said that you having made up your mind as to drawing any other

chart other than a rasi chart as wrong, nothing will come out of this

discussion. I really find it strange that even when almost all

astrologers in India draw Navamasha chart as a matter of course, you

deny that such a chart can exist. This is the first time that I am

seeing that Pramana is demanded for what is Pratyaksha.

 

Chandrashekhar.

 

 

vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

>

> Dear Chandrashekhar ji

>

> You may check with some of your friends on the detailed level of

> explanation in Dashadhyayi.As you might have noted with bHATTOTPALA,

> it will be difficult for me to quote explantions spanning pages.

>

> Now i would love to know if Bhattotpala has mentioned any Trimshamsha

> chakra.Or was that your view.Bhattotpala can never say so.

>

> Respect

> Pradeep

>

>

> <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> <chandrashekhar46 wrote:

> >

> > Dear Pradeep,

> >

> > When you do not accept the Sanskrit shlokas from Brihat jataka,

> which

> > Dashaadhyaayikar comments upon, let apart BPHS, what purpose can be

> > served by giving the voluminous comments of Bhattotpala in

> Sanskrit?

> > Unlike Dashaadhyaayi (if you really gave the entire shlokas)

> Bhattotpala

> > goes into explanation of each word in the shloka and then gives his

> > opinion of what he understands Varaha Mihira to have meant by that

> > shloka. I had already given the English translation of what both

> > Bhattotpala and Sitaram Jha said in earlier mails. If you go

> through our

> > voluminous correspondence, you will certainly get the same.

> >

> > Chandrashekhar.

> >

> > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > >

> > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > >

> > > For the same reason i had provided the very Sanskrit shloka from

> > > Dashadhyayikara regarding kemadruma etc.Similarly if you can give

> > > sanskrit verses from Bhatotpala and hindi from Sitaram jha ,issue

> is

> > > closed.

> > >

> > > Respect

> > > Pradeep

> > >

> <%40>

> > > <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > >

> > > > Okay, let me put it in your words. As you said " Bhattotpala might

> > > have

> > > > been misunderstood (inadvertently) by some or it can be your

> view

> > > about

> > > > those translations. " Why should not Dashaadhyaayikar not have

> been

> > > > misunderstood (inadvertently) by some or it can be your views

> about

> > > > those translations? Any reason for the immunity? We have already

> > > sen

> > > > misinterpretation of KaTaPaYaaDi rules by one scholar on this

> very

> > > list,

> > > > not so long ago.

> > > >

> > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > >

> > > > > Pls read again.I have said Bhatotpala Cannot be wrong is my

> strong

> > > > > conviction.You might have misread it in haste.

> > > > >

> > > > > Respect

> > > > > Pradeep

> > > > >

> > > > > -- In

> <%40>

> > > <%40>

> > > > > <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Think about it, if Bhattotpala can be wrong then so can be

> the

> > > > > > Dashaadhyaayikar. Is there is any reason that he can not be

> if

> > > > > > Bhattotpala can be wrong?

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Dashadhayayi is not a classic and my view was it is more

> than

> > > a

> > > > > mere

> > > > > > > commentary as it has clear explanations,while thinking

> from a

> > > > > > > students perspective.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > As you know,inspite of having all those commentaries,you

> were

> > > > > having

> > > > > > > a view of trimshamsha chakra,which is a concern for

> > > me.Similarly

> > > > > > > there were couple of other shlokas that you have quoted as

> > > > > examples.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Thus i feel Bhatotpala might have been misunderstood

> > > > > (inadvertently)

> > > > > > > by some or it can be your view about those

> > > translations.Bhatotpala

> > > > > > > cannot be wrong is my stron conviction.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > The sanskrit shlokas from dashadhyayi were quoted by

> me,for

> > > > > example

> > > > > > > cases of kemadruma,which clearly explains leaving no

> > > ambiguity.I

> > > > > > > cannot think jeevasharma,Gargi,Sruthakeerthi etc will

> make the

> > > > > same

> > > > > > > mistake.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Thus i was talking about Sanskrit explanations and not

> > > > > > > malayalam.Sanskrit to Malayalam translation is pretty

> straight

> > > > > > > forward due to many similarities.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > I will give all my views with more clarity.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Respect

> > > > > > > Pradeep

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

[Guest guest]

Dear Chandrashekhar ji

 

Difficulty to type in long interpretations is not to be explained.I

do not know how it will become selective.

 

I am bit concerned to see yourself drifting away from the main

point,in your recent posts.

 

For eg - I am still awaiting your view on how to interpret Lagna

shadvargake,when aspects in vargas are not possible as per rules set

by sages.BPHS and Late Santhanam.

 

Inspite of this impossibility ,i don't know how we can think of

aspects in the first place.

 

1)Driksamstha was mentioned by you as example for ''Trimshamsha

chakra''.We have seen that it is not Trimshamsha chakra but rashi

chakra and navamsha combination.In Saravali too this is

mentioned.Dashadhayayi kara too has given the same meaning plus

Saravali as supportive.

 

You were not agreeing.

 

Now today i have seen from internet(www.brihaspati.net),English

translation of Saravali,where the shloka is interpreted exactly the

same way as Dashadhyayi kara has done 800 years back.I request

members to go and read that.

 

2)Chapter 21 ,shloka 8 was mentioned by you as example for amshas in

isolation.We have seen that it contains both rashi and amsha for

shoshee and together in karka or simha for another disease.

 

3)Today you are mentioning shloka 9.Which again is a combination of

amshas and rashi combined with drishti in rashi.We have umpteen

shlokas in Saravali pointing to such drishtis.

 

Thus i request you to kindly explain how Lagna shadvargake shloka can

be explained.Thanks for clarifying that,Trimshamsha chakra was your

personal view.

 

As i have said nobody is opposing the drawing of amshas within rashi

skeleton.Thus as you say drawing chart is pratyaksha.

 

But Paramana was only seeked for shlokas talking about bhavas and

aspects.Riksha/Bhava/Rashi as synonyms makes the defintion clear.Shri

PVR who himself is a Sanskrit scholar could only give one shloka -

Lagnashadvargake.

 

Respect

Pradeep

 

 

 

, Chandrashekhar

<chandrashekhar46 wrote:

>

> Dear Pradeep,

>

> Had I had access to Dashaadhyaayi, I would not have troubled you

with

> all these queries. If you say that you did not reproduce the

comments

> given by Dashaadhyaayikar and only the gist of what he says, does

it

> mean you have given the comments selectively?

>

> Did I say in any of my mails that Bhattotpala said anything about

> Trimshamsha Chakra? And does Dashaadhyaayikar, specifically, says

that

> no other chart than rasi chart exists in astrology as you are

implying?

> I would doubt he could say so. If you read 9th shloka of 21st

adhyaaya

> of Brihat jataka your doubt about navamsha drishti would perhaps be

> clarified, should you accept it to mean what it does.

>

> As I said that you having made up your mind as to drawing any other

> chart other than a rasi chart as wrong, nothing will come out of

this

> discussion. I really find it strange that even when almost all

> astrologers in India draw Navamasha chart as a matter of course,

you

> deny that such a chart can exist. This is the first time that I am

> seeing that Pramana is demanded for what is Pratyaksha.

>

> Chandrashekhar.

>

>

> vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> >

> > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> >

> > You may check with some of your friends on the detailed level of

> > explanation in Dashadhyayi.As you might have noted with

bHATTOTPALA,

> > it will be difficult for me to quote explantions spanning pages.

> >

> > Now i would love to know if Bhattotpala has mentioned any

Trimshamsha

> > chakra.Or was that your view.Bhattotpala can never say so.

> >

> > Respect

> > Pradeep

> >

> >

> > <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > >

> > > Dear Pradeep,

> > >

> > > When you do not accept the Sanskrit shlokas from Brihat jataka,

> > which

> > > Dashaadhyaayikar comments upon, let apart BPHS, what purpose

can be

> > > served by giving the voluminous comments of Bhattotpala in

> > Sanskrit?

> > > Unlike Dashaadhyaayi (if you really gave the entire shlokas)

> > Bhattotpala

> > > goes into explanation of each word in the shloka and then gives

his

> > > opinion of what he understands Varaha Mihira to have meant by

that

> > > shloka. I had already given the English translation of what both

> > > Bhattotpala and Sitaram Jha said in earlier mails. If you go

> > through our

> > > voluminous correspondence, you will certainly get the same.

> > >

> > > Chandrashekhar.

> > >

> > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > >

> > > > For the same reason i had provided the very Sanskrit shloka

from

> > > > Dashadhyayikara regarding kemadruma etc.Similarly if you can

give

> > > > sanskrit verses from Bhatotpala and hindi from Sitaram

jha ,issue

> > is

> > > > closed.

> > > >

> > > > Respect

> > > > Pradeep

> > > >

> > <%40>

> > > > <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > >

> > > > > Okay, let me put it in your words. As you said " Bhattotpala

might

> > > > have

> > > > > been misunderstood (inadvertently) by some or it can be your

> > view

> > > > about

> > > > > those translations. " Why should not Dashaadhyaayikar not

have

> > been

> > > > > misunderstood (inadvertently) by some or it can be your

views

> > about

> > > > > those translations? Any reason for the immunity? We have

already

> > > > sen

> > > > > misinterpretation of KaTaPaYaaDi rules by one scholar on

this

> > very

> > > > list,

> > > > > not so long ago.

> > > > >

> > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Pls read again.I have said Bhatotpala Cannot be wrong is

my

> > strong

> > > > > > conviction.You might have misread it in haste.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Respect

> > > > > > Pradeep

> > > > > >

> > > > > > -- In

> > <%40>

> > > > <%40>

> > > > > > <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> > > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Think about it, if Bhattotpala can be wrong then so can

be

> > the

> > > > > > > Dashaadhyaayikar. Is there is any reason that he can

not be

> > if

> > > > > > > Bhattotpala can be wrong?

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Dashadhayayi is not a classic and my view was it is

more

> > than

> > > > a

> > > > > > mere

> > > > > > > > commentary as it has clear explanations,while thinking

> > from a

> > > > > > > > students perspective.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > As you know,inspite of having all those

commentaries,you

> > were

> > > > > > having

> > > > > > > > a view of trimshamsha chakra,which is a concern for

> > > > me.Similarly

> > > > > > > > there were couple of other shlokas that you have

quoted as

> > > > > > examples.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Thus i feel Bhatotpala might have been misunderstood

> > > > > > (inadvertently)

> > > > > > > > by some or it can be your view about those

> > > > translations.Bhatotpala

> > > > > > > > cannot be wrong is my stron conviction.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > The sanskrit shlokas from dashadhyayi were quoted by

> > me,for

> > > > > > example

> > > > > > > > cases of kemadruma,which clearly explains leaving no

> > > > ambiguity.I

> > > > > > > > cannot think jeevasharma,Gargi,Sruthakeerthi etc will

> > make the

> > > > > > same

> > > > > > > > mistake.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Thus i was talking about Sanskrit explanations and not

> > > > > > > > malayalam.Sanskrit to Malayalam translation is pretty

> > straight

> > > > > > > > forward due to many similarities.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > I will give all my views with more clarity.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Respect

> > > > > > > > Pradeep

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

[Guest guest]

Dear Pradeep,

 

If the entire comment on a shloka is not given then it is obvious that

only selective position is given.

 

I am, perhaps, perceived to be drifting away from the point as you are

bringing in too many points in the thread, and leaving them off when

evidence to the contrary is given by any of the members to the list. You

began by stating the Jaimini sutra as coming from BPHS and then went on

to say that BPHS says that aspects are not possible in D-Charts. Then

you said that KNR does not consider aspects in D-Charts. Then followed

the argument that Santanam does not consider aspects in D-Charts.

Whenever anybody produced evidence to the contrary you changed the

subject to quote someone else. Same happens with your translation of

shlokas and also trying to project that some sage has prohibited use of

any chart other than rasi chart. I had quoted on the authority of

Parashara that he specifically tells to draw charts for Bhava, Ghatika,

Hora lagnas and then you suddenly changed the direction of the

discussion instead of accepting or rejecting the quotes. Even the Amsha

and Amshaka differentiation that is brought in is more for confusion

than clarity. Amshaka is a degree of longitude and so is Amsha though

Amsha also refers to a part of a whole. The difference between their

meaning is negligible with reference to the discussion on Vargas.

 

This is why I had said that I would not like to take pains to write down

the whole commentary of a shloka by Bhattotpala when you said that

dashaadhyaayi also has longish comments. If this is so why give one

liners as the comment? If this is not selective, pray what is?

 

Similar is your insistence to change the grammar of Sanskrit to suit

what you think a sage means. Merely insisting that aspects are not

possible without giving quotes from authorities and saying that no other

charts can be drawn when it is shown that sages did talk of other charts

is not the way to arrive at any concrete conclusion in matters astrological.

 

If you think that Drik does not mean drishti, you are free to think

that. There is no reference to navamsha devoid of chakra and rashi

chakra in the shloka. So we have not seen anything like that as you

claim. The shloka about trimshamsha is different from what is now being

discussed and you will find it if you sift through the voluminous

exchange of mail on this subject.

 

I have not seen a single quotation showing that a chart with a point

other than Lagna rasi can not be drawn. For want of that, it is not

possible to accept that no other chart other than rasi chart can be

drawn as is being advanced by you. I could give you references from

Kerala astrology showing how many different charts can be drawn that

have nothing to do with Janma lagna as the first bhava, but am sure you

will then jump t o some other subject.

 

If you could explain how shadvarga of Venus or Mars can be found in Hora

chart (or mere hora if you prefer that word), Hora being one of the

shadvargas, as proposed by Varaha Mihira, I would explain how Lagna

Shadvargake shloka can be explained ( provided you give the entire

shloka with adhyaaya and shloka number).

 

 

Chandrashekhar.

 

vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

>

> Dear Chandrashekhar ji

>

> Difficulty to type in long interpretations is not to be explained.I

> do not know how it will become selective.

>

> I am bit concerned to see yourself drifting away from the main

> point,in your recent posts.

>

> For eg - I am still awaiting your view on how to interpret Lagna

> shadvargake,when aspects in vargas are not possible as per rules set

> by sages.BPHS and Late Santhanam.

>

> Inspite of this impossibility ,i don't know how we can think of

> aspects in the first place.

>

> 1)Driksamstha was mentioned by you as example for ''Trimshamsha

> chakra''.We have seen that it is not Trimshamsha chakra but rashi

> chakra and navamsha combination.In Saravali too this is

> mentioned.Dashadhayayi kara too has given the same meaning plus

> Saravali as supportive.

>

> You were not agreeing.

>

> Now today i have seen from internet(www.brihaspati.net),English

> translation of Saravali,where the shloka is interpreted exactly the

> same way as Dashadhyayi kara has done 800 years back.I request

> members to go and read that.

>

> 2)Chapter 21 ,shloka 8 was mentioned by you as example for amshas in

> isolation.We have seen that it contains both rashi and amsha for

> shoshee and together in karka or simha for another disease.

>

> 3)Today you are mentioning shloka 9.Which again is a combination of

> amshas and rashi combined with drishti in rashi.We have umpteen

> shlokas in Saravali pointing to such drishtis.

>

> Thus i request you to kindly explain how Lagna shadvargake shloka can

> be explained.Thanks for clarifying that,Trimshamsha chakra was your

> personal view.

>

> As i have said nobody is opposing the drawing of amshas within rashi

> skeleton.Thus as you say drawing chart is pratyaksha.

>

> But Paramana was only seeked for shlokas talking about bhavas and

> aspects.Riksha/Bhava/Rashi as synonyms makes the defintion clear.Shri

> PVR who himself is a Sanskrit scholar could only give one shloka -

> Lagnashadvargake.

>

> Respect

> Pradeep

>

>

> <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> <chandrashekhar46 wrote:

> >

> > Dear Pradeep,

> >

> > Had I had access to Dashaadhyaayi, I would not have troubled you

> with

> > all these queries. If you say that you did not reproduce the

> comments

> > given by Dashaadhyaayikar and only the gist of what he says, does

> it

> > mean you have given the comments selectively?

> >

> > Did I say in any of my mails that Bhattotpala said anything about

> > Trimshamsha Chakra? And does Dashaadhyaayikar, specifically, says

> that

> > no other chart than rasi chart exists in astrology as you are

> implying?

> > I would doubt he could say so. If you read 9th shloka of 21st

> adhyaaya

> > of Brihat jataka your doubt about navamsha drishti would perhaps be

> > clarified, should you accept it to mean what it does.

> >

> > As I said that you having made up your mind as to drawing any other

> > chart other than a rasi chart as wrong, nothing will come out of

> this

> > discussion. I really find it strange that even when almost all

> > astrologers in India draw Navamasha chart as a matter of course,

> you

> > deny that such a chart can exist. This is the first time that I am

> > seeing that Pramana is demanded for what is Pratyaksha.

> >

> > Chandrashekhar.

> >

> >

> > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > >

> > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > >

> > > You may check with some of your friends on the detailed level of

> > > explanation in Dashadhyayi.As you might have noted with

> bHATTOTPALA,

> > > it will be difficult for me to quote explantions spanning pages.

> > >

> > > Now i would love to know if Bhattotpala has mentioned any

> Trimshamsha

> > > chakra.Or was that your view.Bhattotpala can never say so.

> > >

> > > Respect

> > > Pradeep

> > >

> > >

> <%40>

> > > <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > >

> > > > When you do not accept the Sanskrit shlokas from Brihat jataka,

> > > which

> > > > Dashaadhyaayikar comments upon, let apart BPHS, what purpose

> can be

> > > > served by giving the voluminous comments of Bhattotpala in

> > > Sanskrit?

> > > > Unlike Dashaadhyaayi (if you really gave the entire shlokas)

> > > Bhattotpala

> > > > goes into explanation of each word in the shloka and then gives

> his

> > > > opinion of what he understands Varaha Mihira to have meant by

> that

> > > > shloka. I had already given the English translation of what both

> > > > Bhattotpala and Sitaram Jha said in earlier mails. If you go

> > > through our

> > > > voluminous correspondence, you will certainly get the same.

> > > >

> > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > >

> > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > >

> > > > > For the same reason i had provided the very Sanskrit shloka

> from

> > > > > Dashadhyayikara regarding kemadruma etc.Similarly if you can

> give

> > > > > sanskrit verses from Bhatotpala and hindi from Sitaram

> jha ,issue

> > > is

> > > > > closed.

> > > > >

> > > > > Respect

> > > > > Pradeep

> > > > >

> <%40>

> > > <%40>

> > > > > <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Okay, let me put it in your words. As you said " Bhattotpala

> might

> > > > > have

> > > > > > been misunderstood (inadvertently) by some or it can be your

> > > view

> > > > > about

> > > > > > those translations. " Why should not Dashaadhyaayikar not

> have

> > > been

> > > > > > misunderstood (inadvertently) by some or it can be your

> views

> > > about

> > > > > > those translations? Any reason for the immunity? We have

> already

> > > > > sen

> > > > > > misinterpretation of KaTaPaYaaDi rules by one scholar on

> this

> > > very

> > > > > list,

> > > > > > not so long ago.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Pls read again.I have said Bhatotpala Cannot be wrong is

> my

> > > strong

> > > > > > > conviction.You might have misread it in haste.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Respect

> > > > > > > Pradeep

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > -- In

> <%40>

> > > <%40>

> > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> > > > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Think about it, if Bhattotpala can be wrong then so can

> be

> > > the

> > > > > > > > Dashaadhyaayikar. Is there is any reason that he can

> not be

> > > if

> > > > > > > > Bhattotpala can be wrong?

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Dashadhayayi is not a classic and my view was it is

> more

> > > than

> > > > > a

> > > > > > > mere

> > > > > > > > > commentary as it has clear explanations,while thinking

> > > from a

> > > > > > > > > students perspective.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > As you know,inspite of having all those

> commentaries,you

> > > were

> > > > > > > having

> > > > > > > > > a view of trimshamsha chakra,which is a concern for

> > > > > me.Similarly

> > > > > > > > > there were couple of other shlokas that you have

> quoted as

> > > > > > > examples.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Thus i feel Bhatotpala might have been misunderstood

> > > > > > > (inadvertently)

> > > > > > > > > by some or it can be your view about those

> > > > > translations.Bhatotpala

> > > > > > > > > cannot be wrong is my stron conviction.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > The sanskrit shlokas from dashadhyayi were quoted by

> > > me,for

> > > > > > > example

> > > > > > > > > cases of kemadruma,which clearly explains leaving no

> > > > > ambiguity.I

> > > > > > > > > cannot think jeevasharma,Gargi,Sruthakeerthi etc will

> > > make the

> > > > > > > same

> > > > > > > > > mistake.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Thus i was talking about Sanskrit explanations and not

> > > > > > > > > malayalam.Sanskrit to Malayalam translation is pretty

> > > straight

> > > > > > > > > forward due to many similarities.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > I will give all my views with more clarity.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Respect

> > > > > > > > > Pradeep

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

[Guest guest]

Dear ChandraShekhar ji,

 

A Very beautiful post,

 

nicely observed, and exact point to point describing about the

current debate.

 

I hope all members can find out there words in the following post by

your goodself.

 

Warm Regards,

 

Tarun

 

, Chandrashekhar

<chandrashekhar46 wrote:

>

> Dear Pradeep,

>

> If the entire comment on a shloka is not given then it is obvious

that

> only selective position is given.

>

> I am, perhaps, perceived to be drifting away from the point as you

are

> bringing in too many points in the thread, and leaving them off

when

> evidence to the contrary is given by any of the members to the

list. You

> began by stating the Jaimini sutra as coming from BPHS and then

went on

> to say that BPHS says that aspects are not possible in D-Charts.

Then

> you said that KNR does not consider aspects in D-Charts. Then

followed

> the argument that Santanam does not consider aspects in D-Charts.

> Whenever anybody produced evidence to the contrary you changed the

> subject to quote someone else. Same happens with your translation

of

> shlokas and also trying to project that some sage has prohibited

use of

> any chart other than rasi chart. I had quoted on the authority of

> Parashara that he specifically tells to draw charts for Bhava,

Ghatika,

> Hora lagnas and then you suddenly changed the direction of the

> discussion instead of accepting or rejecting the quotes. Even the

Amsha

> and Amshaka differentiation that is brought in is more for

confusion

> than clarity. Amshaka is a degree of longitude and so is Amsha

though

> Amsha also refers to a part of a whole. The difference between

their

> meaning is negligible with reference to the discussion on Vargas.

>

> This is why I had said that I would not like to take pains to write

down

> the whole commentary of a shloka by Bhattotpala when you said that

> dashaadhyaayi also has longish comments. If this is so why give one

> liners as the comment? If this is not selective, pray what is?

>

> Similar is your insistence to change the grammar of Sanskrit to

suit

> what you think a sage means. Merely insisting that aspects are not

> possible without giving quotes from authorities and saying that no

other

> charts can be drawn when it is shown that sages did talk of other

charts

> is not the way to arrive at any concrete conclusion in matters

astrological.

>

> If you think that Drik does not mean drishti, you are free to think

> that. There is no reference to navamsha devoid of chakra and rashi

> chakra in the shloka. So we have not seen anything like that as you

> claim. The shloka about trimshamsha is different from what is now

being

> discussed and you will find it if you sift through the voluminous

> exchange of mail on this subject.

>

> I have not seen a single quotation showing that a chart with a

point

> other than Lagna rasi can not be drawn. For want of that, it is not

> possible to accept that no other chart other than rasi chart can be

> drawn as is being advanced by you. I could give you references from

> Kerala astrology showing how many different charts can be drawn

that

> have nothing to do with Janma lagna as the first bhava, but am sure

you

> will then jump t o some other subject.

>

> If you could explain how shadvarga of Venus or Mars can be found in

Hora

> chart (or mere hora if you prefer that word), Hora being one of the

> shadvargas, as proposed by Varaha Mihira, I would explain how Lagna

> Shadvargake shloka can be explained ( provided you give the entire

> shloka with adhyaaya and shloka number).

>

>

> Chandrashekhar.

>

> vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> >

> > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> >

> > Difficulty to type in long interpretations is not to be

explained.I

> > do not know how it will become selective.

> >

> > I am bit concerned to see yourself drifting away from the main

> > point,in your recent posts.

> >

> > For eg - I am still awaiting your view on how to interpret Lagna

> > shadvargake,when aspects in vargas are not possible as per rules

set

> > by sages.BPHS and Late Santhanam.

> >

> > Inspite of this impossibility ,i don't know how we can think of

> > aspects in the first place.

> >

> > 1)Driksamstha was mentioned by you as example for ''Trimshamsha

> > chakra''.We have seen that it is not Trimshamsha chakra but rashi

> > chakra and navamsha combination.In Saravali too this is

> > mentioned.Dashadhayayi kara too has given the same meaning plus

> > Saravali as supportive.

> >

> > You were not agreeing.

> >

> > Now today i have seen from internet(www.brihaspati.net),English

> > translation of Saravali,where the shloka is interpreted exactly

the

> > same way as Dashadhyayi kara has done 800 years back.I request

> > members to go and read that.

> >

> > 2)Chapter 21 ,shloka 8 was mentioned by you as example for amshas

in

> > isolation.We have seen that it contains both rashi and amsha for

> > shoshee and together in karka or simha for another disease.

> >

> > 3)Today you are mentioning shloka 9.Which again is a combination

of

> > amshas and rashi combined with drishti in rashi.We have umpteen

> > shlokas in Saravali pointing to such drishtis.

> >

> > Thus i request you to kindly explain how Lagna shadvargake shloka

can

> > be explained.Thanks for clarifying that,Trimshamsha chakra was

your

> > personal view.

> >

> > As i have said nobody is opposing the drawing of amshas within

rashi

> > skeleton.Thus as you say drawing chart is pratyaksha.

> >

> > But Paramana was only seeked for shlokas talking about bhavas and

> > aspects.Riksha/Bhava/Rashi as synonyms makes the defintion

clear.Shri

> > PVR who himself is a Sanskrit scholar could only give one shloka -

> > Lagnashadvargake.

> >

> > Respect

> > Pradeep

> >

> >

> > <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > >

> > > Dear Pradeep,

> > >

> > > Had I had access to Dashaadhyaayi, I would not have troubled you

> > with

> > > all these queries. If you say that you did not reproduce the

> > comments

> > > given by Dashaadhyaayikar and only the gist of what he says,

does

> > it

> > > mean you have given the comments selectively?

> > >

> > > Did I say in any of my mails that Bhattotpala said anything

about

> > > Trimshamsha Chakra? And does Dashaadhyaayikar, specifically,

says

> > that

> > > no other chart than rasi chart exists in astrology as you are

> > implying?

> > > I would doubt he could say so. If you read 9th shloka of 21st

> > adhyaaya

> > > of Brihat jataka your doubt about navamsha drishti would

perhaps be

> > > clarified, should you accept it to mean what it does.

> > >

> > > As I said that you having made up your mind as to drawing any

other

> > > chart other than a rasi chart as wrong, nothing will come out of

> > this

> > > discussion. I really find it strange that even when almost all

> > > astrologers in India draw Navamasha chart as a matter of course,

> > you

> > > deny that such a chart can exist. This is the first time that I

am

> > > seeing that Pramana is demanded for what is Pratyaksha.

> > >

> > > Chandrashekhar.

> > >

> > >

> > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > >

> > > > You may check with some of your friends on the detailed level

of

> > > > explanation in Dashadhyayi.As you might have noted with

> > bHATTOTPALA,

> > > > it will be difficult for me to quote explantions spanning

pages.

> > > >

> > > > Now i would love to know if Bhattotpala has mentioned any

> > Trimshamsha

> > > > chakra.Or was that your view.Bhattotpala can never say so.

> > > >

> > > > Respect

> > > > Pradeep

> > > >

> > > >

> > <%40>

> > > > <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > >

> > > > > When you do not accept the Sanskrit shlokas from Brihat

jataka,

> > > > which

> > > > > Dashaadhyaayikar comments upon, let apart BPHS, what purpose

> > can be

> > > > > served by giving the voluminous comments of Bhattotpala in

> > > > Sanskrit?

> > > > > Unlike Dashaadhyaayi (if you really gave the entire shlokas)

> > > > Bhattotpala

> > > > > goes into explanation of each word in the shloka and then

gives

> > his

> > > > > opinion of what he understands Varaha Mihira to have meant

by

> > that

> > > > > shloka. I had already given the English translation of what

both

> > > > > Bhattotpala and Sitaram Jha said in earlier mails. If you go

> > > > through our

> > > > > voluminous correspondence, you will certainly get the same.

> > > > >

> > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > >

> > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > > >

> > > > > > For the same reason i had provided the very Sanskrit

shloka

> > from

> > > > > > Dashadhyayikara regarding kemadruma etc.Similarly if you

can

> > give

> > > > > > sanskrit verses from Bhatotpala and hindi from Sitaram

> > jha ,issue

> > > > is

> > > > > > closed.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Respect

> > > > > > Pradeep

> > > > > >

> > <%40>

> > > > <%40>

> > > > > > <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> > > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Okay, let me put it in your words. As you

said " Bhattotpala

> > might

> > > > > > have

> > > > > > > been misunderstood (inadvertently) by some or it can be

your

> > > > view

> > > > > > about

> > > > > > > those translations. " Why should not Dashaadhyaayikar not

> > have

> > > > been

> > > > > > > misunderstood (inadvertently) by some or it can be your

> > views

> > > > about

> > > > > > > those translations? Any reason for the immunity? We have

> > already

> > > > > > sen

> > > > > > > misinterpretation of KaTaPaYaaDi rules by one scholar on

> > this

> > > > very

> > > > > > list,

> > > > > > > not so long ago.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Pls read again.I have said Bhatotpala Cannot be wrong

is

> > my

> > > > strong

> > > > > > > > conviction.You might have misread it in haste.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Respect

> > > > > > > > Pradeep

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > -- In

> > <%40>

> > > > <%40>

> > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > <%40>,

Chandrashekhar

> > > > > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Think about it, if Bhattotpala can be wrong then so

can

> > be

> > > > the

> > > > > > > > > Dashaadhyaayikar. Is there is any reason that he can

> > not be

> > > > if

> > > > > > > > > Bhattotpala can be wrong?

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Dashadhayayi is not a classic and my view was it

is

> > more

> > > > than

> > > > > > a

> > > > > > > > mere

> > > > > > > > > > commentary as it has clear explanations,while

thinking

> > > > from a

> > > > > > > > > > students perspective.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > As you know,inspite of having all those

> > commentaries,you

> > > > were

> > > > > > > > having

> > > > > > > > > > a view of trimshamsha chakra,which is a concern

for

> > > > > > me.Similarly

> > > > > > > > > > there were couple of other shlokas that you have

> > quoted as

> > > > > > > > examples.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Thus i feel Bhatotpala might have been

misunderstood

> > > > > > > > (inadvertently)

> > > > > > > > > > by some or it can be your view about those

> > > > > > translations.Bhatotpala

> > > > > > > > > > cannot be wrong is my stron conviction.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > The sanskrit shlokas from dashadhyayi were quoted

by

> > > > me,for

> > > > > > > > example

> > > > > > > > > > cases of kemadruma,which clearly explains leaving

no

> > > > > > ambiguity.I

> > > > > > > > > > cannot think jeevasharma,Gargi,Sruthakeerthi etc

will

> > > > make the

> > > > > > > > same

> > > > > > > > > > mistake.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Thus i was talking about Sanskrit explanations

and not

> > > > > > > > > > malayalam.Sanskrit to Malayalam translation is

pretty

> > > > straight

> > > > > > > > > > forward due to many similarities.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > I will give all my views with more clarity.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Respect

> > > > > > > > > > Pradeep

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been

removed]

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

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

----

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

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Version: 7.5.476 / Virus Database: 269.10.4/898 -

Release

> > > > Date:

> > > > > > 7/12/2007 4:08 PM

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

[Guest guest]

Dear Chandrashekhar ji

 

If anybody in this list can show a single reference about myslef

stating K.N.Raoji not using aspects or D-Charts,i will stop this

discussion right now.Late Santhanam did raise concern about aspects

and did quote him.Shri Prafullas first question was the observations

from my discussions with Raoji.I did mention that he uses it.

 

Hora - If you follow Varanasi version,Mars can Venus can have Hora in

the 2nd from Karakamsha.

 

Now i feel you may explain Lagna shadvargake shloka.Chandrashekhar ji

if you try to understand this shloka and explain this thread will end

here.It is very important.

 

I will be happy if a learned scholar like you are sticking to jyotish

as compared to many people who resort to baseless allegations as they

don' t have any answer.

 

Objection is only w.r to varga sambandhas.Just because we draw as a

chart we cannot violate basic rules.

 

Respect

Pradeep

 

, Chandrashekhar

<chandrashekhar46 wrote:

>

> Dear Pradeep,

>

> If the entire comment on a shloka is not given then it is obvious

that

> only selective position is given.

>

> I am, perhaps, perceived to be drifting away from the point as you

are

> bringing in too many points in the thread, and leaving them off

when

> evidence to the contrary is given by any of the members to the

list. You

> began by stating the Jaimini sutra as coming from BPHS and then

went on

> to say that BPHS says that aspects are not possible in D-Charts.

Then

> you said that KNR does not consider aspects in D-Charts. Then

followed

> the argument that Santanam does not consider aspects in D-Charts.

> Whenever anybody produced evidence to the contrary you changed the

> subject to quote someone else. Same happens with your translation

of

> shlokas and also trying to project that some sage has prohibited

use of

> any chart other than rasi chart. I had quoted on the authority of

> Parashara that he specifically tells to draw charts for Bhava,

Ghatika,

> Hora lagnas and then you suddenly changed the direction of the

> discussion instead of accepting or rejecting the quotes. Even the

Amsha

> and Amshaka differentiation that is brought in is more for

confusion

> than clarity. Amshaka is a degree of longitude and so is Amsha

though

> Amsha also refers to a part of a whole. The difference between

their

> meaning is negligible with reference to the discussion on Vargas.

>

> This is why I had said that I would not like to take pains to write

down

> the whole commentary of a shloka by Bhattotpala when you said that

> dashaadhyaayi also has longish comments. If this is so why give one

> liners as the comment? If this is not selective, pray what is?

>

> Similar is your insistence to change the grammar of Sanskrit to

suit

> what you think a sage means. Merely insisting that aspects are not

> possible without giving quotes from authorities and saying that no

other

> charts can be drawn when it is shown that sages did talk of other

charts

> is not the way to arrive at any concrete conclusion in matters

astrological.

>

> If you think that Drik does not mean drishti, you are free to think

> that. There is no reference to navamsha devoid of chakra and rashi

> chakra in the shloka. So we have not seen anything like that as you

> claim. The shloka about trimshamsha is different from what is now

being

> discussed and you will find it if you sift through the voluminous

> exchange of mail on this subject.

>

> I have not seen a single quotation showing that a chart with a

point

> other than Lagna rasi can not be drawn. For want of that, it is not

> possible to accept that no other chart other than rasi chart can be

> drawn as is being advanced by you. I could give you references from

> Kerala astrology showing how many different charts can be drawn

that

> have nothing to do with Janma lagna as the first bhava, but am sure

you

> will then jump t o some other subject.

>

> If you could explain how shadvarga of Venus or Mars can be found in

Hora

> chart (or mere hora if you prefer that word), Hora being one of the

> shadvargas, as proposed by Varaha Mihira, I would explain how Lagna

> Shadvargake shloka can be explained ( provided you give the entire

> shloka with adhyaaya and shloka number).

>

>

> Chandrashekhar.

>

> vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> >

> > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> >

> > Difficulty to type in long interpretations is not to be

explained.I

> > do not know how it will become selective.

> >

> > I am bit concerned to see yourself drifting away from the main

> > point,in your recent posts.

> >

> > For eg - I am still awaiting your view on how to interpret Lagna

> > shadvargake,when aspects in vargas are not possible as per rules

set

> > by sages.BPHS and Late Santhanam.

> >

> > Inspite of this impossibility ,i don't know how we can think of

> > aspects in the first place.

> >

> > 1)Driksamstha was mentioned by you as example for ''Trimshamsha

> > chakra''.We have seen that it is not Trimshamsha chakra but rashi

> > chakra and navamsha combination.In Saravali too this is

> > mentioned.Dashadhayayi kara too has given the same meaning plus

> > Saravali as supportive.

> >

> > You were not agreeing.

> >

> > Now today i have seen from internet(www.brihaspati.net),English

> > translation of Saravali,where the shloka is interpreted exactly

the

> > same way as Dashadhyayi kara has done 800 years back.I request

> > members to go and read that.

> >

> > 2)Chapter 21 ,shloka 8 was mentioned by you as example for amshas

in

> > isolation.We have seen that it contains both rashi and amsha for

> > shoshee and together in karka or simha for another disease.

> >

> > 3)Today you are mentioning shloka 9.Which again is a combination

of

> > amshas and rashi combined with drishti in rashi.We have umpteen

> > shlokas in Saravali pointing to such drishtis.

> >

> > Thus i request you to kindly explain how Lagna shadvargake shloka

can

> > be explained.Thanks for clarifying that,Trimshamsha chakra was

your

> > personal view.

> >

> > As i have said nobody is opposing the drawing of amshas within

rashi

> > skeleton.Thus as you say drawing chart is pratyaksha.

> >

> > But Paramana was only seeked for shlokas talking about bhavas and

> > aspects.Riksha/Bhava/Rashi as synonyms makes the defintion

clear.Shri

> > PVR who himself is a Sanskrit scholar could only give one shloka -

> > Lagnashadvargake.

> >

> > Respect

> > Pradeep

> >

> >

> > <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > >

> > > Dear Pradeep,

> > >

> > > Had I had access to Dashaadhyaayi, I would not have troubled you

> > with

> > > all these queries. If you say that you did not reproduce the

> > comments

> > > given by Dashaadhyaayikar and only the gist of what he says,

does

> > it

> > > mean you have given the comments selectively?

> > >

> > > Did I say in any of my mails that Bhattotpala said anything

about

> > > Trimshamsha Chakra? And does Dashaadhyaayikar, specifically,

says

> > that

> > > no other chart than rasi chart exists in astrology as you are

> > implying?

> > > I would doubt he could say so. If you read 9th shloka of 21st

> > adhyaaya

> > > of Brihat jataka your doubt about navamsha drishti would

perhaps be

> > > clarified, should you accept it to mean what it does.

> > >

> > > As I said that you having made up your mind as to drawing any

other

> > > chart other than a rasi chart as wrong, nothing will come out of

> > this

> > > discussion. I really find it strange that even when almost all

> > > astrologers in India draw Navamasha chart as a matter of course,

> > you

> > > deny that such a chart can exist. This is the first time that I

am

> > > seeing that Pramana is demanded for what is Pratyaksha.

> > >

> > > Chandrashekhar.

> > >

> > >

> > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > >

> > > > You may check with some of your friends on the detailed level

of

> > > > explanation in Dashadhyayi.As you might have noted with

> > bHATTOTPALA,

> > > > it will be difficult for me to quote explantions spanning

pages.

> > > >

> > > > Now i would love to know if Bhattotpala has mentioned any

> > Trimshamsha

> > > > chakra.Or was that your view.Bhattotpala can never say so.

> > > >

> > > > Respect

> > > > Pradeep

> > > >

> > > >

> > <%40>

> > > > <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > >

> > > > > When you do not accept the Sanskrit shlokas from Brihat

jataka,

> > > > which

> > > > > Dashaadhyaayikar comments upon, let apart BPHS, what purpose

> > can be

> > > > > served by giving the voluminous comments of Bhattotpala in

> > > > Sanskrit?

> > > > > Unlike Dashaadhyaayi (if you really gave the entire shlokas)

> > > > Bhattotpala

> > > > > goes into explanation of each word in the shloka and then

gives

> > his

> > > > > opinion of what he understands Varaha Mihira to have meant

by

> > that

> > > > > shloka. I had already given the English translation of what

both

> > > > > Bhattotpala and Sitaram Jha said in earlier mails. If you go

> > > > through our

> > > > > voluminous correspondence, you will certainly get the same.

> > > > >

> > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > >

> > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > > >

> > > > > > For the same reason i had provided the very Sanskrit

shloka

> > from

> > > > > > Dashadhyayikara regarding kemadruma etc.Similarly if you

can

> > give

> > > > > > sanskrit verses from Bhatotpala and hindi from Sitaram

> > jha ,issue

> > > > is

> > > > > > closed.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Respect

> > > > > > Pradeep

> > > > > >

> > <%40>

> > > > <%40>

> > > > > > <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> > > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Okay, let me put it in your words. As you

said " Bhattotpala

> > might

> > > > > > have

> > > > > > > been misunderstood (inadvertently) by some or it can be

your

> > > > view

> > > > > > about

> > > > > > > those translations. " Why should not Dashaadhyaayikar not

> > have

> > > > been

> > > > > > > misunderstood (inadvertently) by some or it can be your

> > views

> > > > about

> > > > > > > those translations? Any reason for the immunity? We have

> > already

> > > > > > sen

> > > > > > > misinterpretation of KaTaPaYaaDi rules by one scholar on

> > this

> > > > very

> > > > > > list,

> > > > > > > not so long ago.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Pls read again.I have said Bhatotpala Cannot be wrong

is

> > my

> > > > strong

> > > > > > > > conviction.You might have misread it in haste.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Respect

> > > > > > > > Pradeep

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > -- In

> > <%40>

> > > > <%40>

> > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > <%40>,

Chandrashekhar

> > > > > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Think about it, if Bhattotpala can be wrong then so

can

> > be

> > > > the

> > > > > > > > > Dashaadhyaayikar. Is there is any reason that he can

> > not be

> > > > if

> > > > > > > > > Bhattotpala can be wrong?

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Dashadhayayi is not a classic and my view was it

is

> > more

> > > > than

> > > > > > a

> > > > > > > > mere

> > > > > > > > > > commentary as it has clear explanations,while

thinking

> > > > from a

> > > > > > > > > > students perspective.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > As you know,inspite of having all those

> > commentaries,you

> > > > were

> > > > > > > > having

> > > > > > > > > > a view of trimshamsha chakra,which is a concern

for

> > > > > > me.Similarly

> > > > > > > > > > there were couple of other shlokas that you have

> > quoted as

> > > > > > > > examples.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Thus i feel Bhatotpala might have been

misunderstood

> > > > > > > > (inadvertently)

> > > > > > > > > > by some or it can be your view about those

> > > > > > translations.Bhatotpala

> > > > > > > > > > cannot be wrong is my stron conviction.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > The sanskrit shlokas from dashadhyayi were quoted

by

> > > > me,for

> > > > > > > > example

> > > > > > > > > > cases of kemadruma,which clearly explains leaving

no

> > > > > > ambiguity.I

> > > > > > > > > > cannot think jeevasharma,Gargi,Sruthakeerthi etc

will

> > > > make the

> > > > > > > > same

> > > > > > > > > > mistake.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Thus i was talking about Sanskrit explanations

and not

> > > > > > > > > > malayalam.Sanskrit to Malayalam translation is

pretty

> > > > straight

> > > > > > > > > > forward due to many similarities.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > I will give all my views with more clarity.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Respect

> > > > > > > > > > Pradeep

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been

removed]

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

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

----

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

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Version: 7.5.476 / Virus Database: 269.10.4/898 -

Release

> > > > Date:

> > > > > > 7/12/2007 4:08 PM

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

[Guest guest]

Dear Chandrashekhar ji

 

Couple of points missed -

Trmishamsha shloka - Driksamsthta was the shloka from Varaha Mihira

and i had given the views expressed in Dashadhyayee.Did either of us

disagree on aspect here.

 

Then Saravalai shloka was quoted.Here it is pretty clear that Kalyan

Varma is talking about a single shloka.You had tried to bring in

aspect on the first line of this shloka.I can help you in finding

your mail from archives.You may kindlty note that if you are raising

allegations ,which may be inadvertent from your part,there are many

with vested interests in this group,who uses your mistaken views as a

vehicle to degrade all the hard work done.

 

Now today you are suddenly bringing ''Drik is aspect'' -which no one

had disagreed.This is schocking.Disagreement was on the corresponding

Saravalai shloka-where you had told me '' cha'' is and!!

 

Now Trimshamshashloka is ending before our concerned shloka.You

yourself had taught me ,that shlokas have to be understood in

sequence.Thus when amsha is mentioned outside any sequence,it always

means navamsha.It is a known fact in Jyotish.

 

Garga,Sruthikeerthi,Jeevasharma,KalyanVerma,Dashadhayai kara etc were

quoted on many occassions,but you are attributing grammatical

interpretation upon my head.Do you mean all these scholars are wrong.

You yourself have clarified that Bhatotpala did not talk about any

Trimshamsha,as i had righlty assumed.A schloar like him will not

imsinterpret.

 

Respect

Pradeep

 

 

 

, Chandrashekhar

<chandrashekhar46 wrote:

>

> Dear Pradeep,

>

> If the entire comment on a shloka is not given then it is obvious

that

> only selective position is given.

>

> I am, perhaps, perceived to be drifting away from the point as you

are

> bringing in too many points in the thread, and leaving them off

when

> evidence to the contrary is given by any of the members to the

list. You

> began by stating the Jaimini sutra as coming from BPHS and then

went on

> to say that BPHS says that aspects are not possible in D-Charts.

Then

> you said that KNR does not consider aspects in D-Charts. Then

followed

> the argument that Santanam does not consider aspects in D-Charts.

> Whenever anybody produced evidence to the contrary you changed the

> subject to quote someone else. Same happens with your translation

of

> shlokas and also trying to project that some sage has prohibited

use of

> any chart other than rasi chart. I had quoted on the authority of

> Parashara that he specifically tells to draw charts for Bhava,

Ghatika,

> Hora lagnas and then you suddenly changed the direction of the

> discussion instead of accepting or rejecting the quotes. Even the

Amsha

> and Amshaka differentiation that is brought in is more for

confusion

> than clarity. Amshaka is a degree of longitude and so is Amsha

though

> Amsha also refers to a part of a whole. The difference between

their

> meaning is negligible with reference to the discussion on Vargas.

>

> This is why I had said that I would not like to take pains to write

down

> the whole commentary of a shloka by Bhattotpala when you said that

> dashaadhyaayi also has longish comments. If this is so why give one

> liners as the comment? If this is not selective, pray what is?

>

> Similar is your insistence to change the grammar of Sanskrit to

suit

> what you think a sage means. Merely insisting that aspects are not

> possible without giving quotes from authorities and saying that no

other

> charts can be drawn when it is shown that sages did talk of other

charts

> is not the way to arrive at any concrete conclusion in matters

astrological.

>

> If you think that Drik does not mean drishti, you are free to think

> that. There is no reference to navamsha devoid of chakra and rashi

> chakra in the shloka. So we have not seen anything like that as you

> claim. The shloka about trimshamsha is different from what is now

being

> discussed and you will find it if you sift through the voluminous

> exchange of mail on this subject.

>

> I have not seen a single quotation showing that a chart with a

point

> other than Lagna rasi can not be drawn. For want of that, it is not

> possible to accept that no other chart other than rasi chart can be

> drawn as is being advanced by you. I could give you references from

> Kerala astrology showing how many different charts can be drawn

that

> have nothing to do with Janma lagna as the first bhava, but am sure

you

> will then jump t o some other subject.

>

> If you could explain how shadvarga of Venus or Mars can be found in

Hora

> chart (or mere hora if you prefer that word), Hora being one of the

> shadvargas, as proposed by Varaha Mihira, I would explain how Lagna

> Shadvargake shloka can be explained ( provided you give the entire

> shloka with adhyaaya and shloka number).

>

>

> Chandrashekhar.

>

> vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> >

> > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> >

> > Difficulty to type in long interpretations is not to be

explained.I

> > do not know how it will become selective.

> >

> > I am bit concerned to see yourself drifting away from the main

> > point,in your recent posts.

> >

> > For eg - I am still awaiting your view on how to interpret Lagna

> > shadvargake,when aspects in vargas are not possible as per rules

set

> > by sages.BPHS and Late Santhanam.

> >

> > Inspite of this impossibility ,i don't know how we can think of

> > aspects in the first place.

> >

> > 1)Driksamstha was mentioned by you as example for ''Trimshamsha

> > chakra''.We have seen that it is not Trimshamsha chakra but rashi

> > chakra and navamsha combination.In Saravali too this is

> > mentioned.Dashadhayayi kara too has given the same meaning plus

> > Saravali as supportive.

> >

> > You were not agreeing.

> >

> > Now today i have seen from internet(www.brihaspati.net),English

> > translation of Saravali,where the shloka is interpreted exactly

the

> > same way as Dashadhyayi kara has done 800 years back.I request

> > members to go and read that.

> >

> > 2)Chapter 21 ,shloka 8 was mentioned by you as example for amshas

in

> > isolation.We have seen that it contains both rashi and amsha for

> > shoshee and together in karka or simha for another disease.

> >

> > 3)Today you are mentioning shloka 9.Which again is a combination

of

> > amshas and rashi combined with drishti in rashi.We have umpteen

> > shlokas in Saravali pointing to such drishtis.

> >

> > Thus i request you to kindly explain how Lagna shadvargake shloka

can

> > be explained.Thanks for clarifying that,Trimshamsha chakra was

your

> > personal view.

> >

> > As i have said nobody is opposing the drawing of amshas within

rashi

> > skeleton.Thus as you say drawing chart is pratyaksha.

> >

> > But Paramana was only seeked for shlokas talking about bhavas and

> > aspects.Riksha/Bhava/Rashi as synonyms makes the defintion

clear.Shri

> > PVR who himself is a Sanskrit scholar could only give one shloka -

> > Lagnashadvargake.

> >

> > Respect

> > Pradeep

> >

> >

> > <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > >

> > > Dear Pradeep,

> > >

> > > Had I had access to Dashaadhyaayi, I would not have troubled you

> > with

> > > all these queries. If you say that you did not reproduce the

> > comments

> > > given by Dashaadhyaayikar and only the gist of what he says,

does

> > it

> > > mean you have given the comments selectively?

> > >

> > > Did I say in any of my mails that Bhattotpala said anything

about

> > > Trimshamsha Chakra? And does Dashaadhyaayikar, specifically,

says

> > that

> > > no other chart than rasi chart exists in astrology as you are

> > implying?

> > > I would doubt he could say so. If you read 9th shloka of 21st

> > adhyaaya

> > > of Brihat jataka your doubt about navamsha drishti would

perhaps be

> > > clarified, should you accept it to mean what it does.

> > >

> > > As I said that you having made up your mind as to drawing any

other

> > > chart other than a rasi chart as wrong, nothing will come out of

> > this

> > > discussion. I really find it strange that even when almost all

> > > astrologers in India draw Navamasha chart as a matter of course,

> > you

> > > deny that such a chart can exist. This is the first time that I

am

> > > seeing that Pramana is demanded for what is Pratyaksha.

> > >

> > > Chandrashekhar.

> > >

> > >

> > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > >

> > > > You may check with some of your friends on the detailed level

of

> > > > explanation in Dashadhyayi.As you might have noted with

> > bHATTOTPALA,

> > > > it will be difficult for me to quote explantions spanning

pages.

> > > >

> > > > Now i would love to know if Bhattotpala has mentioned any

> > Trimshamsha

> > > > chakra.Or was that your view.Bhattotpala can never say so.

> > > >

> > > > Respect

> > > > Pradeep

> > > >

> > > >

> > <%40>

> > > > <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > >

> > > > > When you do not accept the Sanskrit shlokas from Brihat

jataka,

> > > > which

> > > > > Dashaadhyaayikar comments upon, let apart BPHS, what purpose

> > can be

> > > > > served by giving the voluminous comments of Bhattotpala in

> > > > Sanskrit?

> > > > > Unlike Dashaadhyaayi (if you really gave the entire shlokas)

> > > > Bhattotpala

> > > > > goes into explanation of each word in the shloka and then

gives

> > his

> > > > > opinion of what he understands Varaha Mihira to have meant

by

> > that

> > > > > shloka. I had already given the English translation of what

both

> > > > > Bhattotpala and Sitaram Jha said in earlier mails. If you go

> > > > through our

> > > > > voluminous correspondence, you will certainly get the same.

> > > > >

> > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > >

> > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > > >

> > > > > > For the same reason i had provided the very Sanskrit

shloka

> > from

> > > > > > Dashadhyayikara regarding kemadruma etc.Similarly if you

can

> > give

> > > > > > sanskrit verses from Bhatotpala and hindi from Sitaram

> > jha ,issue

> > > > is

> > > > > > closed.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Respect

> > > > > > Pradeep

> > > > > >

> > <%40>

> > > > <%40>

> > > > > > <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> > > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Okay, let me put it in your words. As you

said " Bhattotpala

> > might

> > > > > > have

> > > > > > > been misunderstood (inadvertently) by some or it can be

your

> > > > view

> > > > > > about

> > > > > > > those translations. " Why should not Dashaadhyaayikar not

> > have

> > > > been

> > > > > > > misunderstood (inadvertently) by some or it can be your

> > views

> > > > about

> > > > > > > those translations? Any reason for the immunity? We have

> > already

> > > > > > sen

> > > > > > > misinterpretation of KaTaPaYaaDi rules by one scholar on

> > this

> > > > very

> > > > > > list,

> > > > > > > not so long ago.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Pls read again.I have said Bhatotpala Cannot be wrong

is

> > my

> > > > strong

> > > > > > > > conviction.You might have misread it in haste.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Respect

> > > > > > > > Pradeep

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > -- In

> > <%40>

> > > > <%40>

> > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > <%40>,

Chandrashekhar

> > > > > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Think about it, if Bhattotpala can be wrong then so

can

> > be

> > > > the

> > > > > > > > > Dashaadhyaayikar. Is there is any reason that he can

> > not be

> > > > if

> > > > > > > > > Bhattotpala can be wrong?

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Dashadhayayi is not a classic and my view was it

is

> > more

> > > > than

> > > > > > a

> > > > > > > > mere

> > > > > > > > > > commentary as it has clear explanations,while

thinking

> > > > from a

> > > > > > > > > > students perspective.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > As you know,inspite of having all those

> > commentaries,you

> > > > were

> > > > > > > > having

> > > > > > > > > > a view of trimshamsha chakra,which is a concern

for

> > > > > > me.Similarly

> > > > > > > > > > there were couple of other shlokas that you have

> > quoted as

> > > > > > > > examples.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Thus i feel Bhatotpala might have been

misunderstood

> > > > > > > > (inadvertently)

> > > > > > > > > > by some or it can be your view about those

> > > > > > translations.Bhatotpala

> > > > > > > > > > cannot be wrong is my stron conviction.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > The sanskrit shlokas from dashadhyayi were quoted

by

> > > > me,for

> > > > > > > > example

> > > > > > > > > > cases of kemadruma,which clearly explains leaving

no

> > > > > > ambiguity.I

> > > > > > > > > > cannot think jeevasharma,Gargi,Sruthakeerthi etc

will

> > > > make the

> > > > > > > > same

> > > > > > > > > > mistake.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Thus i was talking about Sanskrit explanations

and not

> > > > > > > > > > malayalam.Sanskrit to Malayalam translation is

pretty

> > > > straight

> > > > > > > > > > forward due to many similarities.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > I will give all my views with more clarity.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Respect

> > > > > > > > > > Pradeep

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been

removed]

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

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

----

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

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Version: 7.5.476 / Virus Database: 269.10.4/898 -

Release

> > > > Date:

> > > > > > 7/12/2007 4:08 PM

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

[Guest guest]

Dear Sri Pradeep,

 

You said :

> I will be happy if a learned scholar like you are sticking to

jyotish

> as compared to many people who resort to baseless allegations as

they

> don' t have any answer.

>

 

I would like to raise a concern here about the way you are

considering other knowledged astroloers.

(a) You seem to be looking down on other astrologers who do not argue

with you. Please refrain yourself from making such comments. Whatever

other astrologers had to say, they said.

(b) I see a tone of 'you are only saying what the sages have said' in

your words and others are doing baseless arguments. This is highly

inappropriate. I would just say that you are expressing your opinion

on what sages might have said. It is just your opinion and people do

not have to accept it. For lack of acceptence does not and should not

mean that people are making baseless arguments.

 

I would appreciate if you use the phrase " In my opinion, sages have

said like this; or it is my interpretation that sages have said this

way ... " . By the way you are expressing your views that all those

great astrologers who have been using D-charts are doing baseless

arguments.

 

This is my last post in this topic. I always wanted to be away from

this debate. But your words seem to be insulting other astrologers,

and I have to come in and say this.

 

I would appreciate if you understand the reality.

 

Best Regards,

 

Satya Sai Kolachina

 

 

 

, " vijayadas_pradeep "

<vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

>

> Dear Chandrashekhar ji

>

> If anybody in this list can show a single reference about myslef

> stating K.N.Raoji not using aspects or D-Charts,i will stop this

> discussion right now.Late Santhanam did raise concern about aspects

> and did quote him.Shri Prafullas first question was the

observations

> from my discussions with Raoji.I did mention that he uses it.

>

> Hora - If you follow Varanasi version,Mars can Venus can have Hora

in

> the 2nd from Karakamsha.

>

> Now i feel you may explain Lagna shadvargake shloka.Chandrashekhar

ji

> if you try to understand this shloka and explain this thread will

end

> here.It is very important.

>

> I will be happy if a learned scholar like you are sticking to

jyotish

> as compared to many people who resort to baseless allegations as

they

> don' t have any answer.

>

> Objection is only w.r to varga sambandhas.Just because we draw as a

> chart we cannot violate basic rules.

>

> Respect

> Pradeep

>

> , Chandrashekhar

> <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> >

> > Dear Pradeep,

> >

> > If the entire comment on a shloka is not given then it is obvious

> that

> > only selective position is given.

> >

> > I am, perhaps, perceived to be drifting away from the point as

you

> are

> > bringing in too many points in the thread, and leaving them off

> when

> > evidence to the contrary is given by any of the members to the

> list. You

> > began by stating the Jaimini sutra as coming from BPHS and then

> went on

> > to say that BPHS says that aspects are not possible in D-Charts.

> Then

> > you said that KNR does not consider aspects in D-Charts. Then

> followed

> > the argument that Santanam does not consider aspects in D-Charts.

> > Whenever anybody produced evidence to the contrary you changed

the

> > subject to quote someone else. Same happens with your translation

> of

> > shlokas and also trying to project that some sage has prohibited

> use of

> > any chart other than rasi chart. I had quoted on the authority of

> > Parashara that he specifically tells to draw charts for Bhava,

> Ghatika,

> > Hora lagnas and then you suddenly changed the direction of the

> > discussion instead of accepting or rejecting the quotes. Even the

> Amsha

> > and Amshaka differentiation that is brought in is more for

> confusion

> > than clarity. Amshaka is a degree of longitude and so is Amsha

> though

> > Amsha also refers to a part of a whole. The difference between

> their

> > meaning is negligible with reference to the discussion on Vargas.

> >

> > This is why I had said that I would not like to take pains to

write

> down

> > the whole commentary of a shloka by Bhattotpala when you said

that

> > dashaadhyaayi also has longish comments. If this is so why give

one

> > liners as the comment? If this is not selective, pray what is?

> >

> > Similar is your insistence to change the grammar of Sanskrit to

> suit

> > what you think a sage means. Merely insisting that aspects are

not

> > possible without giving quotes from authorities and saying that

no

> other

> > charts can be drawn when it is shown that sages did talk of other

> charts

> > is not the way to arrive at any concrete conclusion in matters

> astrological.

> >

> > If you think that Drik does not mean drishti, you are free to

think

> > that. There is no reference to navamsha devoid of chakra and

rashi

> > chakra in the shloka. So we have not seen anything like that as

you

> > claim. The shloka about trimshamsha is different from what is now

> being

> > discussed and you will find it if you sift through the voluminous

> > exchange of mail on this subject.

> >

> > I have not seen a single quotation showing that a chart with a

> point

> > other than Lagna rasi can not be drawn. For want of that, it is

not

> > possible to accept that no other chart other than rasi chart can

be

> > drawn as is being advanced by you. I could give you references

from

> > Kerala astrology showing how many different charts can be drawn

> that

> > have nothing to do with Janma lagna as the first bhava, but am

sure

> you

> > will then jump t o some other subject.

> >

> > If you could explain how shadvarga of Venus or Mars can be found

in

> Hora

> > chart (or mere hora if you prefer that word), Hora being one of

the

> > shadvargas, as proposed by Varaha Mihira, I would explain how

Lagna

> > Shadvargake shloka can be explained ( provided you give the

entire

> > shloka with adhyaaya and shloka number).

> >

> >

> > Chandrashekhar.

> >

> > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > >

> > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > >

> > > Difficulty to type in long interpretations is not to be

> explained.I

> > > do not know how it will become selective.

> > >

> > > I am bit concerned to see yourself drifting away from the main

> > > point,in your recent posts.

> > >

> > > For eg - I am still awaiting your view on how to interpret Lagna

> > > shadvargake,when aspects in vargas are not possible as per

rules

> set

> > > by sages.BPHS and Late Santhanam.

> > >

> > > Inspite of this impossibility ,i don't know how we can think of

> > > aspects in the first place.

> > >

> > > 1)Driksamstha was mentioned by you as example for ''Trimshamsha

> > > chakra''.We have seen that it is not Trimshamsha chakra but

rashi

> > > chakra and navamsha combination.In Saravali too this is

> > > mentioned.Dashadhayayi kara too has given the same meaning plus

> > > Saravali as supportive.

> > >

> > > You were not agreeing.

> > >

> > > Now today i have seen from internet(www.brihaspati.net),English

> > > translation of Saravali,where the shloka is interpreted exactly

> the

> > > same way as Dashadhyayi kara has done 800 years back.I request

> > > members to go and read that.

> > >

> > > 2)Chapter 21 ,shloka 8 was mentioned by you as example for

amshas

> in

> > > isolation.We have seen that it contains both rashi and amsha for

> > > shoshee and together in karka or simha for another disease.

> > >

> > > 3)Today you are mentioning shloka 9.Which again is a

combination

> of

> > > amshas and rashi combined with drishti in rashi.We have umpteen

> > > shlokas in Saravali pointing to such drishtis.

> > >

> > > Thus i request you to kindly explain how Lagna shadvargake

shloka

> can

> > > be explained.Thanks for clarifying that,Trimshamsha chakra was

> your

> > > personal view.

> > >

> > > As i have said nobody is opposing the drawing of amshas within

> rashi

> > > skeleton.Thus as you say drawing chart is pratyaksha.

> > >

> > > But Paramana was only seeked for shlokas talking about bhavas

and

> > > aspects.Riksha/Bhava/Rashi as synonyms makes the defintion

> clear.Shri

> > > PVR who himself is a Sanskrit scholar could only give one

shloka -

> > > Lagnashadvargake.

> > >

> > > Respect

> > > Pradeep

> > >

> > >

> > > <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > >

> > > > Had I had access to Dashaadhyaayi, I would not have troubled

you

> > > with

> > > > all these queries. If you say that you did not reproduce the

> > > comments

> > > > given by Dashaadhyaayikar and only the gist of what he says,

> does

> > > it

> > > > mean you have given the comments selectively?

> > > >

> > > > Did I say in any of my mails that Bhattotpala said anything

> about

> > > > Trimshamsha Chakra? And does Dashaadhyaayikar, specifically,

> says

> > > that

> > > > no other chart than rasi chart exists in astrology as you are

> > > implying?

> > > > I would doubt he could say so. If you read 9th shloka of 21st

> > > adhyaaya

> > > > of Brihat jataka your doubt about navamsha drishti would

> perhaps be

> > > > clarified, should you accept it to mean what it does.

> > > >

> > > > As I said that you having made up your mind as to drawing any

> other

> > > > chart other than a rasi chart as wrong, nothing will come out

of

> > > this

> > > > discussion. I really find it strange that even when almost all

> > > > astrologers in India draw Navamasha chart as a matter of

course,

> > > you

> > > > deny that such a chart can exist. This is the first time that

I

> am

> > > > seeing that Pramana is demanded for what is Pratyaksha.

> > > >

> > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > >

> > > > > You may check with some of your friends on the detailed

level

> of

> > > > > explanation in Dashadhyayi.As you might have noted with

> > > bHATTOTPALA,

> > > > > it will be difficult for me to quote explantions spanning

> pages.

> > > > >

> > > > > Now i would love to know if Bhattotpala has mentioned any

> > > Trimshamsha

> > > > > chakra.Or was that your view.Bhattotpala can never say so.

> > > > >

> > > > > Respect

> > > > > Pradeep

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > <%40>

> > > > > <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > > >

> > > > > > When you do not accept the Sanskrit shlokas from Brihat

> jataka,

> > > > > which

> > > > > > Dashaadhyaayikar comments upon, let apart BPHS, what

purpose

> > > can be

> > > > > > served by giving the voluminous comments of Bhattotpala in

> > > > > Sanskrit?

> > > > > > Unlike Dashaadhyaayi (if you really gave the entire

shlokas)

> > > > > Bhattotpala

> > > > > > goes into explanation of each word in the shloka and then

> gives

> > > his

> > > > > > opinion of what he understands Varaha Mihira to have

meant

> by

> > > that

> > > > > > shloka. I had already given the English translation of

what

> both

> > > > > > Bhattotpala and Sitaram Jha said in earlier mails. If you

go

> > > > > through our

> > > > > > voluminous correspondence, you will certainly get the

same.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > For the same reason i had provided the very Sanskrit

> shloka

> > > from

> > > > > > > Dashadhyayikara regarding kemadruma etc.Similarly if

you

> can

> > > give

> > > > > > > sanskrit verses from Bhatotpala and hindi from Sitaram

> > > jha ,issue

> > > > > is

> > > > > > > closed.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Respect

> > > > > > > Pradeep

> > > > > > >

> > > <%40>

> > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> > > > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Okay, let me put it in your words. As you

> said " Bhattotpala

> > > might

> > > > > > > have

> > > > > > > > been misunderstood (inadvertently) by some or it can

be

> your

> > > > > view

> > > > > > > about

> > > > > > > > those translations. " Why should not Dashaadhyaayikar

not

> > > have

> > > > > been

> > > > > > > > misunderstood (inadvertently) by some or it can be

your

> > > views

> > > > > about

> > > > > > > > those translations? Any reason for the immunity? We

have

> > > already

> > > > > > > sen

> > > > > > > > misinterpretation of KaTaPaYaaDi rules by one scholar

on

> > > this

> > > > > very

> > > > > > > list,

> > > > > > > > not so long ago.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Pls read again.I have said Bhatotpala Cannot be

wrong

> is

> > > my

> > > > > strong

> > > > > > > > > conviction.You might have misread it in haste.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Respect

> > > > > > > > > Pradeep

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > -- In

> > > <%40>

> > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > <%40>,

> Chandrashekhar

> > > > > > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Think about it, if Bhattotpala can be wrong then

so

> can

> > > be

> > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > Dashaadhyaayikar. Is there is any reason that he

can

> > > not be

> > > > > if

> > > > > > > > > > Bhattotpala can be wrong?

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Dashadhayayi is not a classic and my view was

it

> is

> > > more

> > > > > than

> > > > > > > a

> > > > > > > > > mere

> > > > > > > > > > > commentary as it has clear explanations,while

> thinking

> > > > > from a

> > > > > > > > > > > students perspective.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > As you know,inspite of having all those

> > > commentaries,you

> > > > > were

> > > > > > > > > having

> > > > > > > > > > > a view of trimshamsha chakra,which is a concern

> for

> > > > > > > me.Similarly

> > > > > > > > > > > there were couple of other shlokas that you have

> > > quoted as

> > > > > > > > > examples.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Thus i feel Bhatotpala might have been

> misunderstood

> > > > > > > > > (inadvertently)

> > > > > > > > > > > by some or it can be your view about those

> > > > > > > translations.Bhatotpala

> > > > > > > > > > > cannot be wrong is my stron conviction.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > The sanskrit shlokas from dashadhyayi were

quoted

> by

> > > > > me,for

> > > > > > > > > example

> > > > > > > > > > > cases of kemadruma,which clearly explains

leaving

> no

> > > > > > > ambiguity.I

> > > > > > > > > > > cannot think jeevasharma,Gargi,Sruthakeerthi

etc

> will

> > > > > make the

> > > > > > > > > same

> > > > > > > > > > > mistake.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Thus i was talking about Sanskrit explanations

> and not

> > > > > > > > > > > malayalam.Sanskrit to Malayalam translation is

> pretty

> > > > > straight

> > > > > > > > > > > forward due to many similarities.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > I will give all my views with more clarity.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Respect

> > > > > > > > > > > Pradeep

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been

> removed]

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

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

--

> ----

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

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Version: 7.5.476 / Virus Database: 269.10.4/898 -

> Release

> > > > > Date:

> > > > > > > 7/12/2007 4:08 PM

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

[Guest guest]

Dear Shri Satya ji

 

I would always love if elders are there to correct me.

You have totally misunderstood the context.Baseless allegation was

not on Chandrashekhar jis views on sages or his understanding about

shastras.

 

Baseless allegation is about ''myself misquoting someone or posting

something wrong etc''

 

For example - Did i ever say K.N.Raoji does not use aspects or D-

Charts.I did not misquote any shloka - Saravali shloka was discussed

between me and Chandrashekharji.

 

Allegation is against a person,and i may have to clarify my position

when something that i have not done is alleged on my head.I Respect

Chandrashekhar ji and this debate is not any disrespect towards

him.When i debate ,i do not see any individual,i just see the facts.

 

I request you too to study what i am saying before you reach

conclusions.

 

Regds

Pradeep

, " Satya Sai Kolachina "

<skolachi wrote:

>

> Dear Sri Pradeep,

>

> You said :

> > I will be happy if a learned scholar like you are sticking to

> jyotish

> > as compared to many people who resort to baseless allegations as

> they

> > don' t have any answer.

> >

>

> I would like to raise a concern here about the way you are

> considering other knowledged astroloers.

> (a) You seem to be looking down on other astrologers who do not

argue

> with you. Please refrain yourself from making such comments.

Whatever

> other astrologers had to say, they said.

> (b) I see a tone of 'you are only saying what the sages have said'

in

> your words and others are doing baseless arguments. This is highly

> inappropriate. I would just say that you are expressing your

opinion

> on what sages might have said. It is just your opinion and people

do

> not have to accept it. For lack of acceptence does not and should

not

> mean that people are making baseless arguments.

>

> I would appreciate if you use the phrase " In my opinion, sages

have

> said like this; or it is my interpretation that sages have said

this

> way ... " . By the way you are expressing your views that all those

> great astrologers who have been using D-charts are doing baseless

> arguments.

>

> This is my last post in this topic. I always wanted to be away

from

> this debate. But your words seem to be insulting other

astrologers,

> and I have to come in and say this.

>

> I would appreciate if you understand the reality.

>

> Best Regards,

>

> Satya Sai Kolachina

>

>

>

> , " vijayadas_pradeep "

> <vijayadas_pradeep@> wrote:

> >

> > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> >

> > If anybody in this list can show a single reference about myslef

> > stating K.N.Raoji not using aspects or D-Charts,i will stop this

> > discussion right now.Late Santhanam did raise concern about

aspects

> > and did quote him.Shri Prafullas first question was the

> observations

> > from my discussions with Raoji.I did mention that he uses it.

> >

> > Hora - If you follow Varanasi version,Mars can Venus can have

Hora

> in

> > the 2nd from Karakamsha.

> >

> > Now i feel you may explain Lagna shadvargake

shloka.Chandrashekhar

> ji

> > if you try to understand this shloka and explain this thread

will

> end

> > here.It is very important.

> >

> > I will be happy if a learned scholar like you are sticking to

> jyotish

> > as compared to many people who resort to baseless allegations as

> they

> > don' t have any answer.

> >

> > Objection is only w.r to varga sambandhas.Just because we draw

as a

> > chart we cannot violate basic rules.

> >

> > Respect

> > Pradeep

> >

> > , Chandrashekhar

> > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > >

> > > Dear Pradeep,

> > >

> > > If the entire comment on a shloka is not given then it is

obvious

> > that

> > > only selective position is given.

> > >

> > > I am, perhaps, perceived to be drifting away from the point as

> you

> > are

> > > bringing in too many points in the thread, and leaving them

off

> > when

> > > evidence to the contrary is given by any of the members to the

> > list. You

> > > began by stating the Jaimini sutra as coming from BPHS and

then

> > went on

> > > to say that BPHS says that aspects are not possible in D-

Charts.

> > Then

> > > you said that KNR does not consider aspects in D-Charts. Then

> > followed

> > > the argument that Santanam does not consider aspects in D-

Charts.

> > > Whenever anybody produced evidence to the contrary you changed

> the

> > > subject to quote someone else. Same happens with your

translation

> > of

> > > shlokas and also trying to project that some sage has

prohibited

> > use of

> > > any chart other than rasi chart. I had quoted on the authority

of

> > > Parashara that he specifically tells to draw charts for Bhava,

> > Ghatika,

> > > Hora lagnas and then you suddenly changed the direction of the

> > > discussion instead of accepting or rejecting the quotes. Even

the

> > Amsha

> > > and Amshaka differentiation that is brought in is more for

> > confusion

> > > than clarity. Amshaka is a degree of longitude and so is Amsha

> > though

> > > Amsha also refers to a part of a whole. The difference between

> > their

> > > meaning is negligible with reference to the discussion on

Vargas.

> > >

> > > This is why I had said that I would not like to take pains to

> write

> > down

> > > the whole commentary of a shloka by Bhattotpala when you said

> that

> > > dashaadhyaayi also has longish comments. If this is so why

give

> one

> > > liners as the comment? If this is not selective, pray what is?

> > >

> > > Similar is your insistence to change the grammar of Sanskrit

to

> > suit

> > > what you think a sage means. Merely insisting that aspects are

> not

> > > possible without giving quotes from authorities and saying

that

> no

> > other

> > > charts can be drawn when it is shown that sages did talk of

other

> > charts

> > > is not the way to arrive at any concrete conclusion in matters

> > astrological.

> > >

> > > If you think that Drik does not mean drishti, you are free to

> think

> > > that. There is no reference to navamsha devoid of chakra and

> rashi

> > > chakra in the shloka. So we have not seen anything like that

as

> you

> > > claim. The shloka about trimshamsha is different from what is

now

> > being

> > > discussed and you will find it if you sift through the

voluminous

> > > exchange of mail on this subject.

> > >

> > > I have not seen a single quotation showing that a chart with a

> > point

> > > other than Lagna rasi can not be drawn. For want of that, it

is

> not

> > > possible to accept that no other chart other than rasi chart

can

> be

> > > drawn as is being advanced by you. I could give you references

> from

> > > Kerala astrology showing how many different charts can be

drawn

> > that

> > > have nothing to do with Janma lagna as the first bhava, but am

> sure

> > you

> > > will then jump t o some other subject.

> > >

> > > If you could explain how shadvarga of Venus or Mars can be

found

> in

> > Hora

> > > chart (or mere hora if you prefer that word), Hora being one

of

> the

> > > shadvargas, as proposed by Varaha Mihira, I would explain how

> Lagna

> > > Shadvargake shloka can be explained ( provided you give the

> entire

> > > shloka with adhyaaya and shloka number).

> > >

> > >

> > > Chandrashekhar.

> > >

> > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > >

> > > > Difficulty to type in long interpretations is not to be

> > explained.I

> > > > do not know how it will become selective.

> > > >

> > > > I am bit concerned to see yourself drifting away from the

main

> > > > point,in your recent posts.

> > > >

> > > > For eg - I am still awaiting your view on how to interpret

Lagna

> > > > shadvargake,when aspects in vargas are not possible as per

> rules

> > set

> > > > by sages.BPHS and Late Santhanam.

> > > >

> > > > Inspite of this impossibility ,i don't know how we can think

of

> > > > aspects in the first place.

> > > >

> > > > 1)Driksamstha was mentioned by you as example

for ''Trimshamsha

> > > > chakra''.We have seen that it is not Trimshamsha chakra but

> rashi

> > > > chakra and navamsha combination.In Saravali too this is

> > > > mentioned.Dashadhayayi kara too has given the same meaning

plus

> > > > Saravali as supportive.

> > > >

> > > > You were not agreeing.

> > > >

> > > > Now today i have seen from internet

(www.brihaspati.net),English

> > > > translation of Saravali,where the shloka is interpreted

exactly

> > the

> > > > same way as Dashadhyayi kara has done 800 years back.I

request

> > > > members to go and read that.

> > > >

> > > > 2)Chapter 21 ,shloka 8 was mentioned by you as example for

> amshas

> > in

> > > > isolation.We have seen that it contains both rashi and amsha

for

> > > > shoshee and together in karka or simha for another disease.

> > > >

> > > > 3)Today you are mentioning shloka 9.Which again is a

> combination

> > of

> > > > amshas and rashi combined with drishti in rashi.We have

umpteen

> > > > shlokas in Saravali pointing to such drishtis.

> > > >

> > > > Thus i request you to kindly explain how Lagna shadvargake

> shloka

> > can

> > > > be explained.Thanks for clarifying that,Trimshamsha chakra

was

> > your

> > > > personal view.

> > > >

> > > > As i have said nobody is opposing the drawing of amshas

within

> > rashi

> > > > skeleton.Thus as you say drawing chart is pratyaksha.

> > > >

> > > > But Paramana was only seeked for shlokas talking about

bhavas

> and

> > > > aspects.Riksha/Bhava/Rashi as synonyms makes the defintion

> > clear.Shri

> > > > PVR who himself is a Sanskrit scholar could only give one

> shloka -

> > > > Lagnashadvargake.

> > > >

> > > > Respect

> > > > Pradeep

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > >

> > > > > Had I had access to Dashaadhyaayi, I would not have

troubled

> you

> > > > with

> > > > > all these queries. If you say that you did not reproduce

the

> > > > comments

> > > > > given by Dashaadhyaayikar and only the gist of what he

says,

> > does

> > > > it

> > > > > mean you have given the comments selectively?

> > > > >

> > > > > Did I say in any of my mails that Bhattotpala said

anything

> > about

> > > > > Trimshamsha Chakra? And does Dashaadhyaayikar,

specifically,

> > says

> > > > that

> > > > > no other chart than rasi chart exists in astrology as you

are

> > > > implying?

> > > > > I would doubt he could say so. If you read 9th shloka of

21st

> > > > adhyaaya

> > > > > of Brihat jataka your doubt about navamsha drishti would

> > perhaps be

> > > > > clarified, should you accept it to mean what it does.

> > > > >

> > > > > As I said that you having made up your mind as to drawing

any

> > other

> > > > > chart other than a rasi chart as wrong, nothing will come

out

> of

> > > > this

> > > > > discussion. I really find it strange that even when almost

all

> > > > > astrologers in India draw Navamasha chart as a matter of

> course,

> > > > you

> > > > > deny that such a chart can exist. This is the first time

that

> I

> > am

> > > > > seeing that Pramana is demanded for what is Pratyaksha.

> > > > >

> > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > > >

> > > > > > You may check with some of your friends on the detailed

> level

> > of

> > > > > > explanation in Dashadhyayi.As you might have noted with

> > > > bHATTOTPALA,

> > > > > > it will be difficult for me to quote explantions

spanning

> > pages.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Now i would love to know if Bhattotpala has mentioned any

> > > > Trimshamsha

> > > > > > chakra.Or was that your view.Bhattotpala can never say

so.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Respect

> > > > > > Pradeep

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > <%40>

> > > > > > <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> > > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > When you do not accept the Sanskrit shlokas from

Brihat

> > jataka,

> > > > > > which

> > > > > > > Dashaadhyaayikar comments upon, let apart BPHS, what

> purpose

> > > > can be

> > > > > > > served by giving the voluminous comments of

Bhattotpala in

> > > > > > Sanskrit?

> > > > > > > Unlike Dashaadhyaayi (if you really gave the entire

> shlokas)

> > > > > > Bhattotpala

> > > > > > > goes into explanation of each word in the shloka and

then

> > gives

> > > > his

> > > > > > > opinion of what he understands Varaha Mihira to have

> meant

> > by

> > > > that

> > > > > > > shloka. I had already given the English translation of

> what

> > both

> > > > > > > Bhattotpala and Sitaram Jha said in earlier mails. If

you

> go

> > > > > > through our

> > > > > > > voluminous correspondence, you will certainly get the

> same.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > For the same reason i had provided the very Sanskrit

> > shloka

> > > > from

> > > > > > > > Dashadhyayikara regarding kemadruma etc.Similarly if

> you

> > can

> > > > give

> > > > > > > > sanskrit verses from Bhatotpala and hindi from

Sitaram

> > > > jha ,issue

> > > > > > is

> > > > > > > > closed.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Respect

> > > > > > > > Pradeep

> > > > > > > >

> > > > <%40>

> > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > <%40>,

Chandrashekhar

> > > > > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Okay, let me put it in your words. As you

> > said " Bhattotpala

> > > > might

> > > > > > > > have

> > > > > > > > > been misunderstood (inadvertently) by some or it

can

> be

> > your

> > > > > > view

> > > > > > > > about

> > > > > > > > > those translations. " Why should not

Dashaadhyaayikar

> not

> > > > have

> > > > > > been

> > > > > > > > > misunderstood (inadvertently) by some or it can be

> your

> > > > views

> > > > > > about

> > > > > > > > > those translations? Any reason for the immunity?

We

> have

> > > > already

> > > > > > > > sen

> > > > > > > > > misinterpretation of KaTaPaYaaDi rules by one

scholar

> on

> > > > this

> > > > > > very

> > > > > > > > list,

> > > > > > > > > not so long ago.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Pls read again.I have said Bhatotpala Cannot be

> wrong

> > is

> > > > my

> > > > > > strong

> > > > > > > > > > conviction.You might have misread it in haste.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Respect

> > > > > > > > > > Pradeep

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > -- In

> > > > <%40>

> > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > <%40>,

> > Chandrashekhar

> > > > > > > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Think about it, if Bhattotpala can be wrong

then

> so

> > can

> > > > be

> > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > Dashaadhyaayikar. Is there is any reason that

he

> can

> > > > not be

> > > > > > if

> > > > > > > > > > > Bhattotpala can be wrong?

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > Dashadhayayi is not a classic and my view

was

> it

> > is

> > > > more

> > > > > > than

> > > > > > > > a

> > > > > > > > > > mere

> > > > > > > > > > > > commentary as it has clear

explanations,while

> > thinking

> > > > > > from a

> > > > > > > > > > > > students perspective.

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > As you know,inspite of having all those

> > > > commentaries,you

> > > > > > were

> > > > > > > > > > having

> > > > > > > > > > > > a view of trimshamsha chakra,which is a

concern

> > for

> > > > > > > > me.Similarly

> > > > > > > > > > > > there were couple of other shlokas that you

have

> > > > quoted as

> > > > > > > > > > examples.

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > Thus i feel Bhatotpala might have been

> > misunderstood

> > > > > > > > > > (inadvertently)

> > > > > > > > > > > > by some or it can be your view about those

> > > > > > > > translations.Bhatotpala

> > > > > > > > > > > > cannot be wrong is my stron conviction.

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > The sanskrit shlokas from dashadhyayi were

> quoted

> > by

> > > > > > me,for

> > > > > > > > > > example

> > > > > > > > > > > > cases of kemadruma,which clearly explains

> leaving

> > no

> > > > > > > > ambiguity.I

> > > > > > > > > > > > cannot think jeevasharma,Gargi,Sruthakeerthi

> etc

> > will

> > > > > > make the

> > > > > > > > > > same

> > > > > > > > > > > > mistake.

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > Thus i was talking about Sanskrit

explanations

> > and not

> > > > > > > > > > > > malayalam.Sanskrit to Malayalam translation

is

> > pretty

> > > > > > straight

> > > > > > > > > > > > forward due to many similarities.

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > I will give all my views with more clarity.

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > Respect

> > > > > > > > > > > > Pradeep

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been

> > removed]

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

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

---

> --

> > ----

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

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Version: 7.5.476 / Virus Database: 269.10.4/898 -

 

> > Release

> > > > > > Date:

> > > > > > > > 7/12/2007 4:08 PM

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been

removed]

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

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

---

> --

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

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Version: 7.5.476 / Virus Database: 269.10.4/898 -

> Release

> > > > Date:

> > > > > > 7/12/2007 4:08 PM

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

[Guest guest]

Dear Satya ji

 

To add -

 

You may like some scholar for some reason and i may like another one

or even the same scholar.If we add this element into our studies,the

chance of some bias creeping into our judgement cannot be totally

ruled out.

 

Thus my approach is not to mix these two.I cannot force my view upon

you.It is at your discretion.

 

Regds

Pradeep

 

, " vijayadas_pradeep "

<vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

>

> Dear Shri Satya ji

>

> I would always love if elders are there to correct me.

> You have totally misunderstood the context.Baseless allegation was

> not on Chandrashekhar jis views on sages or his understanding

about

> shastras.

>

> Baseless allegation is about ''myself misquoting someone or

posting

> something wrong etc''

>

> For example - Did i ever say K.N.Raoji does not use aspects or D-

> Charts.I did not misquote any shloka - Saravali shloka was

discussed

> between me and Chandrashekharji.

>

> Allegation is against a person,and i may have to clarify my

position

> when something that i have not done is alleged on my head.I

Respect

> Chandrashekhar ji and this debate is not any disrespect towards

> him.When i debate ,i do not see any individual,i just see the

facts.

>

> I request you too to study what i am saying before you reach

> conclusions.

>

> Regds

> Pradeep

> , " Satya Sai Kolachina "

> <skolachi@> wrote:

> >

> > Dear Sri Pradeep,

> >

> > You said :

> > > I will be happy if a learned scholar like you are sticking to

> > jyotish

> > > as compared to many people who resort to baseless allegations

as

> > they

> > > don' t have any answer.

> > >

> >

> > I would like to raise a concern here about the way you are

> > considering other knowledged astroloers.

> > (a) You seem to be looking down on other astrologers who do not

> argue

> > with you. Please refrain yourself from making such comments.

> Whatever

> > other astrologers had to say, they said.

> > (b) I see a tone of 'you are only saying what the sages have

said'

> in

> > your words and others are doing baseless arguments. This is

highly

> > inappropriate. I would just say that you are expressing your

> opinion

> > on what sages might have said. It is just your opinion and

people

> do

> > not have to accept it. For lack of acceptence does not and

should

> not

> > mean that people are making baseless arguments.

> >

> > I would appreciate if you use the phrase " In my opinion, sages

> have

> > said like this; or it is my interpretation that sages have said

> this

> > way ... " . By the way you are expressing your views that all

those

> > great astrologers who have been using D-charts are doing

baseless

> > arguments.

> >

> > This is my last post in this topic. I always wanted to be away

> from

> > this debate. But your words seem to be insulting other

> astrologers,

> > and I have to come in and say this.

> >

> > I would appreciate if you understand the reality.

> >

> > Best Regards,

> >

> > Satya Sai Kolachina

> >

> >

> >

> > , " vijayadas_pradeep "

> > <vijayadas_pradeep@> wrote:

> > >

> > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > >

> > > If anybody in this list can show a single reference about

myslef

> > > stating K.N.Raoji not using aspects or D-Charts,i will stop

this

> > > discussion right now.Late Santhanam did raise concern about

> aspects

> > > and did quote him.Shri Prafullas first question was the

> > observations

> > > from my discussions with Raoji.I did mention that he uses it.

> > >

> > > Hora - If you follow Varanasi version,Mars can Venus can have

> Hora

> > in

> > > the 2nd from Karakamsha.

> > >

> > > Now i feel you may explain Lagna shadvargake

> shloka.Chandrashekhar

> > ji

> > > if you try to understand this shloka and explain this thread

> will

> > end

> > > here.It is very important.

> > >

> > > I will be happy if a learned scholar like you are sticking to

> > jyotish

> > > as compared to many people who resort to baseless allegations

as

> > they

> > > don' t have any answer.

> > >

> > > Objection is only w.r to varga sambandhas.Just because we draw

> as a

> > > chart we cannot violate basic rules.

> > >

> > > Respect

> > > Pradeep

> > >

> > > , Chandrashekhar

> > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > >

> > > > If the entire comment on a shloka is not given then it is

> obvious

> > > that

> > > > only selective position is given.

> > > >

> > > > I am, perhaps, perceived to be drifting away from the point

as

> > you

> > > are

> > > > bringing in too many points in the thread, and leaving them

> off

> > > when

> > > > evidence to the contrary is given by any of the members to

the

> > > list. You

> > > > began by stating the Jaimini sutra as coming from BPHS and

> then

> > > went on

> > > > to say that BPHS says that aspects are not possible in D-

> Charts.

> > > Then

> > > > you said that KNR does not consider aspects in D-Charts.

Then

> > > followed

> > > > the argument that Santanam does not consider aspects in D-

> Charts.

> > > > Whenever anybody produced evidence to the contrary you

changed

> > the

> > > > subject to quote someone else. Same happens with your

> translation

> > > of

> > > > shlokas and also trying to project that some sage has

> prohibited

> > > use of

> > > > any chart other than rasi chart. I had quoted on the

authority

> of

> > > > Parashara that he specifically tells to draw charts for

Bhava,

> > > Ghatika,

> > > > Hora lagnas and then you suddenly changed the direction of

the

> > > > discussion instead of accepting or rejecting the quotes.

Even

> the

> > > Amsha

> > > > and Amshaka differentiation that is brought in is more for

> > > confusion

> > > > than clarity. Amshaka is a degree of longitude and so is

Amsha

> > > though

> > > > Amsha also refers to a part of a whole. The difference

between

> > > their

> > > > meaning is negligible with reference to the discussion on

> Vargas.

> > > >

> > > > This is why I had said that I would not like to take pains

to

> > write

> > > down

> > > > the whole commentary of a shloka by Bhattotpala when you

said

> > that

> > > > dashaadhyaayi also has longish comments. If this is so why

> give

> > one

> > > > liners as the comment? If this is not selective, pray what

is?

> > > >

> > > > Similar is your insistence to change the grammar of Sanskrit

> to

> > > suit

> > > > what you think a sage means. Merely insisting that aspects

are

> > not

> > > > possible without giving quotes from authorities and saying

> that

> > no

> > > other

> > > > charts can be drawn when it is shown that sages did talk of

> other

> > > charts

> > > > is not the way to arrive at any concrete conclusion in

matters

> > > astrological.

> > > >

> > > > If you think that Drik does not mean drishti, you are free

to

> > think

> > > > that. There is no reference to navamsha devoid of chakra and

> > rashi

> > > > chakra in the shloka. So we have not seen anything like that

> as

> > you

> > > > claim. The shloka about trimshamsha is different from what

is

> now

> > > being

> > > > discussed and you will find it if you sift through the

> voluminous

> > > > exchange of mail on this subject.

> > > >

> > > > I have not seen a single quotation showing that a chart with

a

> > > point

> > > > other than Lagna rasi can not be drawn. For want of that, it

> is

> > not

> > > > possible to accept that no other chart other than rasi chart

> can

> > be

> > > > drawn as is being advanced by you. I could give you

references

> > from

> > > > Kerala astrology showing how many different charts can be

> drawn

> > > that

> > > > have nothing to do with Janma lagna as the first bhava, but

am

> > sure

> > > you

> > > > will then jump t o some other subject.

> > > >

> > > > If you could explain how shadvarga of Venus or Mars can be

> found

> > in

> > > Hora

> > > > chart (or mere hora if you prefer that word), Hora being one

> of

> > the

> > > > shadvargas, as proposed by Varaha Mihira, I would explain

how

> > Lagna

> > > > Shadvargake shloka can be explained ( provided you give the

> > entire

> > > > shloka with adhyaaya and shloka number).

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > >

> > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > >

> > > > > Difficulty to type in long interpretations is not to be

> > > explained.I

> > > > > do not know how it will become selective.

> > > > >

> > > > > I am bit concerned to see yourself drifting away from the

> main

> > > > > point,in your recent posts.

> > > > >

> > > > > For eg - I am still awaiting your view on how to interpret

> Lagna

> > > > > shadvargake,when aspects in vargas are not possible as per

> > rules

> > > set

> > > > > by sages.BPHS and Late Santhanam.

> > > > >

> > > > > Inspite of this impossibility ,i don't know how we can

think

> of

> > > > > aspects in the first place.

> > > > >

> > > > > 1)Driksamstha was mentioned by you as example

> for ''Trimshamsha

> > > > > chakra''.We have seen that it is not Trimshamsha chakra

but

> > rashi

> > > > > chakra and navamsha combination.In Saravali too this is

> > > > > mentioned.Dashadhayayi kara too has given the same meaning

> plus

> > > > > Saravali as supportive.

> > > > >

> > > > > You were not agreeing.

> > > > >

> > > > > Now today i have seen from internet

> (www.brihaspati.net),English

> > > > > translation of Saravali,where the shloka is interpreted

> exactly

> > > the

> > > > > same way as Dashadhyayi kara has done 800 years back.I

> request

> > > > > members to go and read that.

> > > > >

> > > > > 2)Chapter 21 ,shloka 8 was mentioned by you as example for

> > amshas

> > > in

> > > > > isolation.We have seen that it contains both rashi and

amsha

> for

> > > > > shoshee and together in karka or simha for another disease.

> > > > >

> > > > > 3)Today you are mentioning shloka 9.Which again is a

> > combination

> > > of

> > > > > amshas and rashi combined with drishti in rashi.We have

> umpteen

> > > > > shlokas in Saravali pointing to such drishtis.

> > > > >

> > > > > Thus i request you to kindly explain how Lagna shadvargake

> > shloka

> > > can

> > > > > be explained.Thanks for clarifying that,Trimshamsha chakra

> was

> > > your

> > > > > personal view.

> > > > >

> > > > > As i have said nobody is opposing the drawing of amshas

> within

> > > rashi

> > > > > skeleton.Thus as you say drawing chart is pratyaksha.

> > > > >

> > > > > But Paramana was only seeked for shlokas talking about

> bhavas

> > and

> > > > > aspects.Riksha/Bhava/Rashi as synonyms makes the defintion

> > > clear.Shri

> > > > > PVR who himself is a Sanskrit scholar could only give one

> > shloka -

> > > > > Lagnashadvargake.

> > > > >

> > > > > Respect

> > > > > Pradeep

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Had I had access to Dashaadhyaayi, I would not have

> troubled

> > you

> > > > > with

> > > > > > all these queries. If you say that you did not reproduce

> the

> > > > > comments

> > > > > > given by Dashaadhyaayikar and only the gist of what he

> says,

> > > does

> > > > > it

> > > > > > mean you have given the comments selectively?

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Did I say in any of my mails that Bhattotpala said

> anything

> > > about

> > > > > > Trimshamsha Chakra? And does Dashaadhyaayikar,

> specifically,

> > > says

> > > > > that

> > > > > > no other chart than rasi chart exists in astrology as

you

> are

> > > > > implying?

> > > > > > I would doubt he could say so. If you read 9th shloka of

> 21st

> > > > > adhyaaya

> > > > > > of Brihat jataka your doubt about navamsha drishti would

> > > perhaps be

> > > > > > clarified, should you accept it to mean what it does.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > As I said that you having made up your mind as to

drawing

> any

> > > other

> > > > > > chart other than a rasi chart as wrong, nothing will

come

> out

> > of

> > > > > this

> > > > > > discussion. I really find it strange that even when

almost

> all

> > > > > > astrologers in India draw Navamasha chart as a matter of

> > course,

> > > > > you

> > > > > > deny that such a chart can exist. This is the first time

> that

> > I

> > > am

> > > > > > seeing that Pramana is demanded for what is Pratyaksha.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > You may check with some of your friends on the

detailed

> > level

> > > of

> > > > > > > explanation in Dashadhyayi.As you might have noted with

> > > > > bHATTOTPALA,

> > > > > > > it will be difficult for me to quote explantions

> spanning

> > > pages.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Now i would love to know if Bhattotpala has mentioned

any

> > > > > Trimshamsha

> > > > > > > chakra.Or was that your view.Bhattotpala can never say

> so.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Respect

> > > > > > > Pradeep

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> > > > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > When you do not accept the Sanskrit shlokas from

> Brihat

> > > jataka,

> > > > > > > which

> > > > > > > > Dashaadhyaayikar comments upon, let apart BPHS, what

> > purpose

> > > > > can be

> > > > > > > > served by giving the voluminous comments of

> Bhattotpala in

> > > > > > > Sanskrit?

> > > > > > > > Unlike Dashaadhyaayi (if you really gave the entire

> > shlokas)

> > > > > > > Bhattotpala

> > > > > > > > goes into explanation of each word in the shloka and

> then

> > > gives

> > > > > his

> > > > > > > > opinion of what he understands Varaha Mihira to have

> > meant

> > > by

> > > > > that

> > > > > > > > shloka. I had already given the English translation

of

> > what

> > > both

> > > > > > > > Bhattotpala and Sitaram Jha said in earlier mails.

If

> you

> > go

> > > > > > > through our

> > > > > > > > voluminous correspondence, you will certainly get

the

> > same.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > For the same reason i had provided the very

Sanskrit

> > > shloka

> > > > > from

> > > > > > > > > Dashadhyayikara regarding kemadruma etc.Similarly

if

> > you

> > > can

> > > > > give

> > > > > > > > > sanskrit verses from Bhatotpala and hindi from

> Sitaram

> > > > > jha ,issue

> > > > > > > is

> > > > > > > > > closed.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Respect

> > > > > > > > > Pradeep

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > <%40>,

> Chandrashekhar

> > > > > > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Okay, let me put it in your words. As you

> > > said " Bhattotpala

> > > > > might

> > > > > > > > > have

> > > > > > > > > > been misunderstood (inadvertently) by some or it

> can

> > be

> > > your

> > > > > > > view

> > > > > > > > > about

> > > > > > > > > > those translations. " Why should not

> Dashaadhyaayikar

> > not

> > > > > have

> > > > > > > been

> > > > > > > > > > misunderstood (inadvertently) by some or it can

be

> > your

> > > > > views

> > > > > > > about

> > > > > > > > > > those translations? Any reason for the immunity?

> We

> > have

> > > > > already

> > > > > > > > > sen

> > > > > > > > > > misinterpretation of KaTaPaYaaDi rules by one

> scholar

> > on

> > > > > this

> > > > > > > very

> > > > > > > > > list,

> > > > > > > > > > not so long ago.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Pls read again.I have said Bhatotpala Cannot

be

> > wrong

> > > is

> > > > > my

> > > > > > > strong

> > > > > > > > > > > conviction.You might have misread it in haste.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Respect

> > > > > > > > > > > Pradeep

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > -- In

> > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > <%40>,

> > > Chandrashekhar

> > > > > > > > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > Think about it, if Bhattotpala can be wrong

> then

> > so

> > > can

> > > > > be

> > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > Dashaadhyaayikar. Is there is any reason

that

> he

> > can

> > > > > not be

> > > > > > > if

> > > > > > > > > > > > Bhattotpala can be wrong?

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Dashadhayayi is not a classic and my view

> was

> > it

> > > is

> > > > > more

> > > > > > > than

> > > > > > > > > a

> > > > > > > > > > > mere

> > > > > > > > > > > > > commentary as it has clear

> explanations,while

> > > thinking

> > > > > > > from a

> > > > > > > > > > > > > students perspective.

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > As you know,inspite of having all those

> > > > > commentaries,you

> > > > > > > were

> > > > > > > > > > > having

> > > > > > > > > > > > > a view of trimshamsha chakra,which is a

> concern

> > > for

> > > > > > > > > me.Similarly

> > > > > > > > > > > > > there were couple of other shlokas that

you

> have

> > > > > quoted as

> > > > > > > > > > > examples.

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Thus i feel Bhatotpala might have been

> > > misunderstood

> > > > > > > > > > > (inadvertently)

> > > > > > > > > > > > > by some or it can be your view about those

> > > > > > > > > translations.Bhatotpala

> > > > > > > > > > > > > cannot be wrong is my stron conviction.

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > The sanskrit shlokas from dashadhyayi were

> > quoted

> > > by

> > > > > > > me,for

> > > > > > > > > > > example

> > > > > > > > > > > > > cases of kemadruma,which clearly explains

> > leaving

> > > no

> > > > > > > > > ambiguity.I

> > > > > > > > > > > > > cannot think

jeevasharma,Gargi,Sruthakeerthi

> > etc

> > > will

> > > > > > > make the

> > > > > > > > > > > same

> > > > > > > > > > > > > mistake.

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Thus i was talking about Sanskrit

> explanations

> > > and not

> > > > > > > > > > > > > malayalam.Sanskrit to Malayalam

translation

> is

> > > pretty

> > > > > > > straight

> > > > > > > > > > > > > forward due to many similarities.

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > I will give all my views with more clarity.

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Respect

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Pradeep

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been

> > > removed]

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

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

--

> ---

> > --

> > > ----

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

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Version: 7.5.476 / Virus Database:

269.10.4/898 -

>

> > > Release

> > > > > > > Date:

> > > > > > > > > 7/12/2007 4:08 PM

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been

> removed]

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

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

--

> ---

> > --

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

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Version: 7.5.476 / Virus Database: 269.10.4/898 -

> > Release

> > > > > Date:

> > > > > > > 7/12/2007 4:08 PM

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

[Guest guest]

Dear Pradeep,

 

This is precisely the reason I had stopped responding to the thread,

till it was opened again.

 

If one goes on deviating from the original thread, what happens is that

the essence is lost and conjectures come in. If Drik is accepted to be

aspect then why from driksamstha only occupation of an amsha

(deliberately giving this term as there is no need to jump from

Trimshamsha to Navamsha again and again) is accepted and drishti is not,

defies reason.

 

For record let me make it clear that I do not see our exchange as a

fight between two astrologers but only a discussion which has dragged

on, on one count or other. However what has happened is that insistence

for only one translator being correct and all others wrong has dragged

on the debate. I have never tried to " attribute grammatical

interpretation on your head " , as you delicately put it. I remember it is

you who said that Varge is plural and I only pointed out that this is

not so. If you are averse to use Sanskrit Grammar for interpretation of

Sanskrit shlokas, then it maybe better not to interpret them.

 

By the way, do you remember that I also said that when amsha is referred

to in isolation then either navamsha or Dwadashaamsha is assumed.

 

The confusion arises when one mixes, Jaimini, BPHS, Saravali, KNR,

Sanjay Rath et-al to justify one's view. I hope you do not want to say

that I attributed their references to your head.

 

By the way, there is more to Jyotish than Brihat jataka and other texts

also talk about various position of Trimshamsha occupation and aspect of

grahas.

 

Chandrashekhar.

 

vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

>

> Dear Chandrashekhar ji

>

> Couple of points missed -

> Trmishamsha shloka - Driksamsthta was the shloka from Varaha Mihira

> and i had given the views expressed in Dashadhyayee.Did either of us

> disagree on aspect here.

>

> Then Saravalai shloka was quoted.Here it is pretty clear that Kalyan

> Varma is talking about a single shloka.You had tried to bring in

> aspect on the first line of this shloka.I can help you in finding

> your mail from archives.You may kindlty note that if you are raising

> allegations ,which may be inadvertent from your part,there are many

> with vested interests in this group,who uses your mistaken views as a

> vehicle to degrade all the hard work done.

>

> Now today you are suddenly bringing ''Drik is aspect'' -which no one

> had disagreed.This is schocking.Disagreement was on the corresponding

> Saravalai shloka-where you had told me '' cha'' is and!!

>

> Now Trimshamshashloka is ending before our concerned shloka.You

> yourself had taught me ,that shlokas have to be understood in

> sequence.Thus when amsha is mentioned outside any sequence,it always

> means navamsha.It is a known fact in Jyotish.

>

> Garga,Sruthikeerthi,Jeevasharma,KalyanVerma,Dashadhayai kara etc were

> quoted on many occassions,but you are attributing grammatical

> interpretation upon my head.Do you mean all these scholars are wrong.

> You yourself have clarified that Bhatotpala did not talk about any

> Trimshamsha,as i had righlty assumed.A schloar like him will not

> imsinterpret.

>

> Respect

> Pradeep

>

>

> <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> <chandrashekhar46 wrote:

> >

> > Dear Pradeep,

> >

> > If the entire comment on a shloka is not given then it is obvious

> that

> > only selective position is given.

> >

> > I am, perhaps, perceived to be drifting away from the point as you

> are

> > bringing in too many points in the thread, and leaving them off

> when

> > evidence to the contrary is given by any of the members to the

> list. You

> > began by stating the Jaimini sutra as coming from BPHS and then

> went on

> > to say that BPHS says that aspects are not possible in D-Charts.

> Then

> > you said that KNR does not consider aspects in D-Charts. Then

> followed

> > the argument that Santanam does not consider aspects in D-Charts.

> > Whenever anybody produced evidence to the contrary you changed the

> > subject to quote someone else. Same happens with your translation

> of

> > shlokas and also trying to project that some sage has prohibited

> use of

> > any chart other than rasi chart. I had quoted on the authority of

> > Parashara that he specifically tells to draw charts for Bhava,

> Ghatika,

> > Hora lagnas and then you suddenly changed the direction of the

> > discussion instead of accepting or rejecting the quotes. Even the

> Amsha

> > and Amshaka differentiation that is brought in is more for

> confusion

> > than clarity. Amshaka is a degree of longitude and so is Amsha

> though

> > Amsha also refers to a part of a whole. The difference between

> their

> > meaning is negligible with reference to the discussion on Vargas.

> >

> > This is why I had said that I would not like to take pains to write

> down

> > the whole commentary of a shloka by Bhattotpala when you said that

> > dashaadhyaayi also has longish comments. If this is so why give one

> > liners as the comment? If this is not selective, pray what is?

> >

> > Similar is your insistence to change the grammar of Sanskrit to

> suit

> > what you think a sage means. Merely insisting that aspects are not

> > possible without giving quotes from authorities and saying that no

> other

> > charts can be drawn when it is shown that sages did talk of other

> charts

> > is not the way to arrive at any concrete conclusion in matters

> astrological.

> >

> > If you think that Drik does not mean drishti, you are free to think

> > that. There is no reference to navamsha devoid of chakra and rashi

> > chakra in the shloka. So we have not seen anything like that as you

> > claim. The shloka about trimshamsha is different from what is now

> being

> > discussed and you will find it if you sift through the voluminous

> > exchange of mail on this subject.

> >

> > I have not seen a single quotation showing that a chart with a

> point

> > other than Lagna rasi can not be drawn. For want of that, it is not

> > possible to accept that no other chart other than rasi chart can be

> > drawn as is being advanced by you. I could give you references from

> > Kerala astrology showing how many different charts can be drawn

> that

> > have nothing to do with Janma lagna as the first bhava, but am sure

> you

> > will then jump t o some other subject.

> >

> > If you could explain how shadvarga of Venus or Mars can be found in

> Hora

> > chart (or mere hora if you prefer that word), Hora being one of the

> > shadvargas, as proposed by Varaha Mihira, I would explain how Lagna

> > Shadvargake shloka can be explained ( provided you give the entire

> > shloka with adhyaaya and shloka number).

> >

> >

> > Chandrashekhar.

> >

> > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > >

> > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > >

> > > Difficulty to type in long interpretations is not to be

> explained.I

> > > do not know how it will become selective.

> > >

> > > I am bit concerned to see yourself drifting away from the main

> > > point,in your recent posts.

> > >

> > > For eg - I am still awaiting your view on how to interpret Lagna

> > > shadvargake,when aspects in vargas are not possible as per rules

> set

> > > by sages.BPHS and Late Santhanam.

> > >

> > > Inspite of this impossibility ,i don't know how we can think of

> > > aspects in the first place.

> > >

> > > 1)Driksamstha was mentioned by you as example for ''Trimshamsha

> > > chakra''.We have seen that it is not Trimshamsha chakra but rashi

> > > chakra and navamsha combination.In Saravali too this is

> > > mentioned.Dashadhayayi kara too has given the same meaning plus

> > > Saravali as supportive.

> > >

> > > You were not agreeing.

> > >

> > > Now today i have seen from internet(www.brihaspati.net),English

> > > translation of Saravali,where the shloka is interpreted exactly

> the

> > > same way as Dashadhyayi kara has done 800 years back.I request

> > > members to go and read that.

> > >

> > > 2)Chapter 21 ,shloka 8 was mentioned by you as example for amshas

> in

> > > isolation.We have seen that it contains both rashi and amsha for

> > > shoshee and together in karka or simha for another disease.

> > >

> > > 3)Today you are mentioning shloka 9.Which again is a combination

> of

> > > amshas and rashi combined with drishti in rashi.We have umpteen

> > > shlokas in Saravali pointing to such drishtis.

> > >

> > > Thus i request you to kindly explain how Lagna shadvargake shloka

> can

> > > be explained.Thanks for clarifying that,Trimshamsha chakra was

> your

> > > personal view.

> > >

> > > As i have said nobody is opposing the drawing of amshas within

> rashi

> > > skeleton.Thus as you say drawing chart is pratyaksha.

> > >

> > > But Paramana was only seeked for shlokas talking about bhavas and

> > > aspects.Riksha/Bhava/Rashi as synonyms makes the defintion

> clear.Shri

> > > PVR who himself is a Sanskrit scholar could only give one shloka -

> > > Lagnashadvargake.

> > >

> > > Respect

> > > Pradeep

> > >

> > >

> <%40>

> > > <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > >

> > > > Had I had access to Dashaadhyaayi, I would not have troubled you

> > > with

> > > > all these queries. If you say that you did not reproduce the

> > > comments

> > > > given by Dashaadhyaayikar and only the gist of what he says,

> does

> > > it

> > > > mean you have given the comments selectively?

> > > >

> > > > Did I say in any of my mails that Bhattotpala said anything

> about

> > > > Trimshamsha Chakra? And does Dashaadhyaayikar, specifically,

> says

> > > that

> > > > no other chart than rasi chart exists in astrology as you are

> > > implying?

> > > > I would doubt he could say so. If you read 9th shloka of 21st

> > > adhyaaya

> > > > of Brihat jataka your doubt about navamsha drishti would

> perhaps be

> > > > clarified, should you accept it to mean what it does.

> > > >

> > > > As I said that you having made up your mind as to drawing any

> other

> > > > chart other than a rasi chart as wrong, nothing will come out of

> > > this

> > > > discussion. I really find it strange that even when almost all

> > > > astrologers in India draw Navamasha chart as a matter of course,

> > > you

> > > > deny that such a chart can exist. This is the first time that I

> am

> > > > seeing that Pramana is demanded for what is Pratyaksha.

> > > >

> > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > >

> > > > > You may check with some of your friends on the detailed level

> of

> > > > > explanation in Dashadhyayi.As you might have noted with

> > > bHATTOTPALA,

> > > > > it will be difficult for me to quote explantions spanning

> pages.

> > > > >

> > > > > Now i would love to know if Bhattotpala has mentioned any

> > > Trimshamsha

> > > > > chakra.Or was that your view.Bhattotpala can never say so.

> > > > >

> > > > > Respect

> > > > > Pradeep

> > > > >

> > > > >

> <%40>

> > > <%40>

> > > > > <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > > >

> > > > > > When you do not accept the Sanskrit shlokas from Brihat

> jataka,

> > > > > which

> > > > > > Dashaadhyaayikar comments upon, let apart BPHS, what purpose

> > > can be

> > > > > > served by giving the voluminous comments of Bhattotpala in

> > > > > Sanskrit?

> > > > > > Unlike Dashaadhyaayi (if you really gave the entire shlokas)

> > > > > Bhattotpala

> > > > > > goes into explanation of each word in the shloka and then

> gives

> > > his

> > > > > > opinion of what he understands Varaha Mihira to have meant

> by

> > > that

> > > > > > shloka. I had already given the English translation of what

> both

> > > > > > Bhattotpala and Sitaram Jha said in earlier mails. If you go

> > > > > through our

> > > > > > voluminous correspondence, you will certainly get the same.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > For the same reason i had provided the very Sanskrit

> shloka

> > > from

> > > > > > > Dashadhyayikara regarding kemadruma etc.Similarly if you

> can

> > > give

> > > > > > > sanskrit verses from Bhatotpala and hindi from Sitaram

> > > jha ,issue

> > > > > is

> > > > > > > closed.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Respect

> > > > > > > Pradeep

> > > > > > >

> <%40>

> > > <%40>

> > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> > > > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Okay, let me put it in your words. As you

> said " Bhattotpala

> > > might

> > > > > > > have

> > > > > > > > been misunderstood (inadvertently) by some or it can be

> your

> > > > > view

> > > > > > > about

> > > > > > > > those translations. " Why should not Dashaadhyaayikar not

> > > have

> > > > > been

> > > > > > > > misunderstood (inadvertently) by some or it can be your

> > > views

> > > > > about

> > > > > > > > those translations? Any reason for the immunity? We have

> > > already

> > > > > > > sen

> > > > > > > > misinterpretation of KaTaPaYaaDi rules by one scholar on

> > > this

> > > > > very

> > > > > > > list,

> > > > > > > > not so long ago.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Pls read again.I have said Bhatotpala Cannot be wrong

> is

> > > my

> > > > > strong

> > > > > > > > > conviction.You might have misread it in haste.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Respect

> > > > > > > > > Pradeep

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > -- In

> <%40>

> > > <%40>

> > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > <%40>,

> Chandrashekhar

> > > > > > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Think about it, if Bhattotpala can be wrong then so

> can

> > > be

> > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > Dashaadhyaayikar. Is there is any reason that he can

> > > not be

> > > > > if

> > > > > > > > > > Bhattotpala can be wrong?

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Dashadhayayi is not a classic and my view was it

> is

> > > more

> > > > > than

> > > > > > > a

> > > > > > > > > mere

> > > > > > > > > > > commentary as it has clear explanations,while

> thinking

> > > > > from a

> > > > > > > > > > > students perspective.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > As you know,inspite of having all those

> > > commentaries,you

> > > > > were

> > > > > > > > > having

> > > > > > > > > > > a view of trimshamsha chakra,which is a concern

> for

> > > > > > > me.Similarly

> > > > > > > > > > > there were couple of other shlokas that you have

> > > quoted as

> > > > > > > > > examples.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Thus i feel Bhatotpala might have been

> misunderstood

> > > > > > > > > (inadvertently)

> > > > > > > > > > > by some or it can be your view about those

> > > > > > > translations.Bhatotpala

> > > > > > > > > > > cannot be wrong is my stron conviction.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > The sanskrit shlokas from dashadhyayi were quoted

> by

> > > > > me,for

> > > > > > > > > example

> > > > > > > > > > > cases of kemadruma,which clearly explains leaving

> no

> > > > > > > ambiguity.I

> > > > > > > > > > > cannot think jeevasharma,Gargi,Sruthakeerthi etc

> will

> > > > > make the

> > > > > > > > > same

> > > > > > > > > > > mistake.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Thus i was talking about Sanskrit explanations

> and not

> > > > > > > > > > > malayalam.Sanskrit to Malayalam translation is

> pretty

> > > > > straight

> > > > > > > > > > > forward due to many similarities.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > I will give all my views with more clarity.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Respect

> > > > > > > > > > > Pradeep

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been

> removed]

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

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

> ----

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

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Version: 7.5.476 / Virus Database: 269.10.4/898 -

> Release

> > > > > Date:

> > > > > > > 7/12/2007 4:08 PM

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

[Guest guest]

Dear Pradeep,

 

I have neither the inclination nor the time in this old age to sift

through the mails. I am sure there are many who will be willing to do

that. I think about Varanasi hora, I wrote about that. I am asking you

how you see the Vargas with the Hora used by Brihat Jataka and

Dashaadhyaayi that you are extensively quoting. Better talk about that.

 

I have never deviated from Jyotish. If you remember your last mail was

imputing motives to me of " attributing translations to your head " and so

on.

 

Quote the entire Lagna shadvargake shloka with chapter number, shloka

number and the text, and I shall interpret for the jyotishis. But do not

expect me to restrict to the Hora of Brihat jataka and Dashaadhyaayi.

That can never explain the shloka, properly. By the way I do not think

it will imply that aspects are not to be seen in D-Charts as is being

implied by you.

 

Chandrashekhar.

 

vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

>

> Dear Chandrashekhar ji

>

> If anybody in this list can show a single reference about myslef

> stating K.N.Raoji not using aspects or D-Charts,i will stop this

> discussion right now.Late Santhanam did raise concern about aspects

> and did quote him.Shri Prafullas first question was the observations

> from my discussions with Raoji.I did mention that he uses it.

>

> Hora - If you follow Varanasi version,Mars can Venus can have Hora in

> the 2nd from Karakamsha.

>

> Now i feel you may explain Lagna shadvargake shloka.Chandrashekhar ji

> if you try to understand this shloka and explain this thread will end

> here.It is very important.

>

> I will be happy if a learned scholar like you are sticking to jyotish

> as compared to many people who resort to baseless allegations as they

> don' t have any answer.

>

> Objection is only w.r to varga sambandhas.Just because we draw as a

> chart we cannot violate basic rules.

>

> Respect

> Pradeep

>

>

> <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> <chandrashekhar46 wrote:

> >

> > Dear Pradeep,

> >

> > If the entire comment on a shloka is not given then it is obvious

> that

> > only selective position is given.

> >

> > I am, perhaps, perceived to be drifting away from the point as you

> are

> > bringing in too many points in the thread, and leaving them off

> when

> > evidence to the contrary is given by any of the members to the

> list. You

> > began by stating the Jaimini sutra as coming from BPHS and then

> went on

> > to say that BPHS says that aspects are not possible in D-Charts.

> Then

> > you said that KNR does not consider aspects in D-Charts. Then

> followed

> > the argument that Santanam does not consider aspects in D-Charts.

> > Whenever anybody produced evidence to the contrary you changed the

> > subject to quote someone else. Same happens with your translation

> of

> > shlokas and also trying to project that some sage has prohibited

> use of

> > any chart other than rasi chart. I had quoted on the authority of

> > Parashara that he specifically tells to draw charts for Bhava,

> Ghatika,

> > Hora lagnas and then you suddenly changed the direction of the

> > discussion instead of accepting or rejecting the quotes. Even the

> Amsha

> > and Amshaka differentiation that is brought in is more for

> confusion

> > than clarity. Amshaka is a degree of longitude and so is Amsha

> though

> > Amsha also refers to a part of a whole. The difference between

> their

> > meaning is negligible with reference to the discussion on Vargas.

> >

> > This is why I had said that I would not like to take pains to write

> down

> > the whole commentary of a shloka by Bhattotpala when you said that

> > dashaadhyaayi also has longish comments. If this is so why give one

> > liners as the comment? If this is not selective, pray what is?

> >

> > Similar is your insistence to change the grammar of Sanskrit to

> suit

> > what you think a sage means. Merely insisting that aspects are not

> > possible without giving quotes from authorities and saying that no

> other

> > charts can be drawn when it is shown that sages did talk of other

> charts

> > is not the way to arrive at any concrete conclusion in matters

> astrological.

> >

> > If you think that Drik does not mean drishti, you are free to think

> > that. There is no reference to navamsha devoid of chakra and rashi

> > chakra in the shloka. So we have not seen anything like that as you

> > claim. The shloka about trimshamsha is different from what is now

> being

> > discussed and you will find it if you sift through the voluminous

> > exchange of mail on this subject.

> >

> > I have not seen a single quotation showing that a chart with a

> point

> > other than Lagna rasi can not be drawn. For want of that, it is not

> > possible to accept that no other chart other than rasi chart can be

> > drawn as is being advanced by you. I could give you references from

> > Kerala astrology showing how many different charts can be drawn

> that

> > have nothing to do with Janma lagna as the first bhava, but am sure

> you

> > will then jump t o some other subject.

> >

> > If you could explain how shadvarga of Venus or Mars can be found in

> Hora

> > chart (or mere hora if you prefer that word), Hora being one of the

> > shadvargas, as proposed by Varaha Mihira, I would explain how Lagna

> > Shadvargake shloka can be explained ( provided you give the entire

> > shloka with adhyaaya and shloka number).

> >

> >

> > Chandrashekhar.

> >

> > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > >

> > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > >

> > > Difficulty to type in long interpretations is not to be

> explained.I

> > > do not know how it will become selective.

> > >

> > > I am bit concerned to see yourself drifting away from the main

> > > point,in your recent posts.

> > >

> > > For eg - I am still awaiting your view on how to interpret Lagna

> > > shadvargake,when aspects in vargas are not possible as per rules

> set

> > > by sages.BPHS and Late Santhanam.

> > >

> > > Inspite of this impossibility ,i don't know how we can think of

> > > aspects in the first place.

> > >

> > > 1)Driksamstha was mentioned by you as example for ''Trimshamsha

> > > chakra''.We have seen that it is not Trimshamsha chakra but rashi

> > > chakra and navamsha combination.In Saravali too this is

> > > mentioned.Dashadhayayi kara too has given the same meaning plus

> > > Saravali as supportive.

> > >

> > > You were not agreeing.

> > >

> > > Now today i have seen from internet(www.brihaspati.net),English

> > > translation of Saravali,where the shloka is interpreted exactly

> the

> > > same way as Dashadhyayi kara has done 800 years back.I request

> > > members to go and read that.

> > >

> > > 2)Chapter 21 ,shloka 8 was mentioned by you as example for amshas

> in

> > > isolation.We have seen that it contains both rashi and amsha for

> > > shoshee and together in karka or simha for another disease.

> > >

> > > 3)Today you are mentioning shloka 9.Which again is a combination

> of

> > > amshas and rashi combined with drishti in rashi.We have umpteen

> > > shlokas in Saravali pointing to such drishtis.

> > >

> > > Thus i request you to kindly explain how Lagna shadvargake shloka

> can

> > > be explained.Thanks for clarifying that,Trimshamsha chakra was

> your

> > > personal view.

> > >

> > > As i have said nobody is opposing the drawing of amshas within

> rashi

> > > skeleton.Thus as you say drawing chart is pratyaksha.

> > >

> > > But Paramana was only seeked for shlokas talking about bhavas and

> > > aspects.Riksha/Bhava/Rashi as synonyms makes the defintion

> clear.Shri

> > > PVR who himself is a Sanskrit scholar could only give one shloka -

> > > Lagnashadvargake.

> > >

> > > Respect

> > > Pradeep

> > >

> > >

> <%40>

> > > <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > >

> > > > Had I had access to Dashaadhyaayi, I would not have troubled you

> > > with

> > > > all these queries. If you say that you did not reproduce the

> > > comments

> > > > given by Dashaadhyaayikar and only the gist of what he says,

> does

> > > it

> > > > mean you have given the comments selectively?

> > > >

> > > > Did I say in any of my mails that Bhattotpala said anything

> about

> > > > Trimshamsha Chakra? And does Dashaadhyaayikar, specifically,

> says

> > > that

> > > > no other chart than rasi chart exists in astrology as you are

> > > implying?

> > > > I would doubt he could say so. If you read 9th shloka of 21st

> > > adhyaaya

> > > > of Brihat jataka your doubt about navamsha drishti would

> perhaps be

> > > > clarified, should you accept it to mean what it does.

> > > >

> > > > As I said that you having made up your mind as to drawing any

> other

> > > > chart other than a rasi chart as wrong, nothing will come out of

> > > this

> > > > discussion. I really find it strange that even when almost all

> > > > astrologers in India draw Navamasha chart as a matter of course,

> > > you

> > > > deny that such a chart can exist. This is the first time that I

> am

> > > > seeing that Pramana is demanded for what is Pratyaksha.

> > > >

> > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > >

> > > > > You may check with some of your friends on the detailed level

> of

> > > > > explanation in Dashadhyayi.As you might have noted with

> > > bHATTOTPALA,

> > > > > it will be difficult for me to quote explantions spanning

> pages.

> > > > >

> > > > > Now i would love to know if Bhattotpala has mentioned any

> > > Trimshamsha

> > > > > chakra.Or was that your view.Bhattotpala can never say so.

> > > > >

> > > > > Respect

> > > > > Pradeep

> > > > >

> > > > >

> <%40>

> > > <%40>

> > > > > <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > > >

> > > > > > When you do not accept the Sanskrit shlokas from Brihat

> jataka,

> > > > > which

> > > > > > Dashaadhyaayikar comments upon, let apart BPHS, what purpose

> > > can be

> > > > > > served by giving the voluminous comments of Bhattotpala in

> > > > > Sanskrit?

> > > > > > Unlike Dashaadhyaayi (if you really gave the entire shlokas)

> > > > > Bhattotpala

> > > > > > goes into explanation of each word in the shloka and then

> gives

> > > his

> > > > > > opinion of what he understands Varaha Mihira to have meant

> by

> > > that

> > > > > > shloka. I had already given the English translation of what

> both

> > > > > > Bhattotpala and Sitaram Jha said in earlier mails. If you go

> > > > > through our

> > > > > > voluminous correspondence, you will certainly get the same.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > For the same reason i had provided the very Sanskrit

> shloka

> > > from

> > > > > > > Dashadhyayikara regarding kemadruma etc.Similarly if you

> can

> > > give

> > > > > > > sanskrit verses from Bhatotpala and hindi from Sitaram

> > > jha ,issue

> > > > > is

> > > > > > > closed.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Respect

> > > > > > > Pradeep

> > > > > > >

> <%40>

> > > <%40>

> > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> > > > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Okay, let me put it in your words. As you

> said " Bhattotpala

> > > might

> > > > > > > have

> > > > > > > > been misunderstood (inadvertently) by some or it can be

> your

> > > > > view

> > > > > > > about

> > > > > > > > those translations. " Why should not Dashaadhyaayikar not

> > > have

> > > > > been

> > > > > > > > misunderstood (inadvertently) by some or it can be your

> > > views

> > > > > about

> > > > > > > > those translations? Any reason for the immunity? We have

> > > already

> > > > > > > sen

> > > > > > > > misinterpretation of KaTaPaYaaDi rules by one scholar on

> > > this

> > > > > very

> > > > > > > list,

> > > > > > > > not so long ago.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Pls read again.I have said Bhatotpala Cannot be wrong

> is

> > > my

> > > > > strong

> > > > > > > > > conviction.You might have misread it in haste.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Respect

> > > > > > > > > Pradeep

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > -- In

> <%40>

> > > <%40>

> > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > <%40>,

> Chandrashekhar

> > > > > > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Think about it, if Bhattotpala can be wrong then so

> can

> > > be

> > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > Dashaadhyaayikar. Is there is any reason that he can

> > > not be

> > > > > if

> > > > > > > > > > Bhattotpala can be wrong?

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Dashadhayayi is not a classic and my view was it

> is

> > > more

> > > > > than

> > > > > > > a

> > > > > > > > > mere

> > > > > > > > > > > commentary as it has clear explanations,while

> thinking

> > > > > from a

> > > > > > > > > > > students perspective.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > As you know,inspite of having all those

> > > commentaries,you

> > > > > were

> > > > > > > > > having

> > > > > > > > > > > a view of trimshamsha chakra,which is a concern

> for

> > > > > > > me.Similarly

> > > > > > > > > > > there were couple of other shlokas that you have

> > > quoted as

> > > > > > > > > examples.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Thus i feel Bhatotpala might have been

> misunderstood

> > > > > > > > > (inadvertently)

> > > > > > > > > > > by some or it can be your view about those

> > > > > > > translations.Bhatotpala

> > > > > > > > > > > cannot be wrong is my stron conviction.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > The sanskrit shlokas from dashadhyayi were quoted

> by

> > > > > me,for

> > > > > > > > > example

> > > > > > > > > > > cases of kemadruma,which clearly explains leaving

> no

> > > > > > > ambiguity.I

> > > > > > > > > > > cannot think jeevasharma,Gargi,Sruthakeerthi etc

> will

> > > > > make the

> > > > > > > > > same

> > > > > > > > > > > mistake.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Thus i was talking about Sanskrit explanations

> and not

> > > > > > > > > > > malayalam.Sanskrit to Malayalam translation is

> pretty

> > > > > straight

> > > > > > > > > > > forward due to many similarities.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > I will give all my views with more clarity.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Respect

> > > > > > > > > > > Pradeep

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been

> removed]

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

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

> ----

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

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Version: 7.5.476 / Virus Database: 269.10.4/898 -

> Release

> > > > > Date:

> > > > > > > 7/12/2007 4:08 PM

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

[Guest guest]

Dear Satya ji

 

I wanted to avoid posting, but remembered a joke. See we are like

farmers..so read:

 

" I don't want a car, " said the farmer to the persistent salesman. " I

need a new cow. "

" But you can't ride a cow along the streets. "

" True. But I can't milk a new car, can I? "

 

 

regards / Prafulla

 

, " Satya Sai Kolachina "

<skolachi wrote:

>

> Dear Sri Pradeep,

>

> You said :

> > I will be happy if a learned scholar like you are sticking to

> jyotish

> > as compared to many people who resort to baseless allegations as

> they

> > don' t have any answer.

> >

>

> I would like to raise a concern here about the way you are

> considering other knowledged astroloers.

> (a) You seem to be looking down on other astrologers who do not argue

> with you. Please refrain yourself from making such comments. Whatever

> other astrologers had to say, they said.

> (b) I see a tone of 'you are only saying what the sages have said' in

> your words and others are doing baseless arguments. This is highly

> inappropriate. I would just say that you are expressing your opinion

> on what sages might have said. It is just your opinion and people do

> not have to accept it. For lack of acceptence does not and should not

> mean that people are making baseless arguments.

>

> I would appreciate if you use the phrase " In my opinion, sages have

> said like this; or it is my interpretation that sages have said this

> way ... " . By the way you are expressing your views that all those

> great astrologers who have been using D-charts are doing baseless

> arguments.

>

> This is my last post in this topic. I always wanted to be away from

> this debate. But your words seem to be insulting other astrologers,

> and I have to come in and say this.

>

> I would appreciate if you understand the reality.

>

> Best Regards,

>

> Satya Sai Kolachina

>

>

>

> , " vijayadas_pradeep "

> <vijayadas_pradeep@> wrote:

> >

> > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> >

> > If anybody in this list can show a single reference about myslef

> > stating K.N.Raoji not using aspects or D-Charts,i will stop this

> > discussion right now.Late Santhanam did raise concern about aspects

> > and did quote him.Shri Prafullas first question was the

> observations

> > from my discussions with Raoji.I did mention that he uses it.

> >

> > Hora - If you follow Varanasi version,Mars can Venus can have Hora

> in

> > the 2nd from Karakamsha.

> >

> > Now i feel you may explain Lagna shadvargake shloka.Chandrashekhar

> ji

> > if you try to understand this shloka and explain this thread will

> end

> > here.It is very important.

> >

> > I will be happy if a learned scholar like you are sticking to

> jyotish

> > as compared to many people who resort to baseless allegations as

> they

> > don' t have any answer.

> >

> > Objection is only w.r to varga sambandhas.Just because we draw as a

> > chart we cannot violate basic rules.

> >

> > Respect

> > Pradeep

> >

> > , Chandrashekhar

> > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > >

> > > Dear Pradeep,

> > >

> > > If the entire comment on a shloka is not given then it is obvious

> > that

> > > only selective position is given.

> > >

> > > I am, perhaps, perceived to be drifting away from the point as

> you

> > are

> > > bringing in too many points in the thread, and leaving them off

> > when

> > > evidence to the contrary is given by any of the members to the

> > list. You

> > > began by stating the Jaimini sutra as coming from BPHS and then

> > went on

> > > to say that BPHS says that aspects are not possible in D-Charts.

> > Then

> > > you said that KNR does not consider aspects in D-Charts. Then

> > followed

> > > the argument that Santanam does not consider aspects in D-Charts.

> > > Whenever anybody produced evidence to the contrary you changed

> the

> > > subject to quote someone else. Same happens with your translation

> > of

> > > shlokas and also trying to project that some sage has prohibited

> > use of

> > > any chart other than rasi chart. I had quoted on the authority of

> > > Parashara that he specifically tells to draw charts for Bhava,

> > Ghatika,

> > > Hora lagnas and then you suddenly changed the direction of the

> > > discussion instead of accepting or rejecting the quotes. Even the

> > Amsha

> > > and Amshaka differentiation that is brought in is more for

> > confusion

> > > than clarity. Amshaka is a degree of longitude and so is Amsha

> > though

> > > Amsha also refers to a part of a whole. The difference between

> > their

> > > meaning is negligible with reference to the discussion on Vargas.

> > >

> > > This is why I had said that I would not like to take pains to

> write

> > down

> > > the whole commentary of a shloka by Bhattotpala when you said

> that

> > > dashaadhyaayi also has longish comments. If this is so why give

> one

> > > liners as the comment? If this is not selective, pray what is?

> > >

> > > Similar is your insistence to change the grammar of Sanskrit to

> > suit

> > > what you think a sage means. Merely insisting that aspects are

> not

> > > possible without giving quotes from authorities and saying that

> no

> > other

> > > charts can be drawn when it is shown that sages did talk of other

> > charts

> > > is not the way to arrive at any concrete conclusion in matters

> > astrological.

> > >

> > > If you think that Drik does not mean drishti, you are free to

> think

> > > that. There is no reference to navamsha devoid of chakra and

> rashi

> > > chakra in the shloka. So we have not seen anything like that as

> you

> > > claim. The shloka about trimshamsha is different from what is now

> > being

> > > discussed and you will find it if you sift through the voluminous

> > > exchange of mail on this subject.

> > >

> > > I have not seen a single quotation showing that a chart with a

> > point

> > > other than Lagna rasi can not be drawn. For want of that, it is

> not

> > > possible to accept that no other chart other than rasi chart can

> be

> > > drawn as is being advanced by you. I could give you references

> from

> > > Kerala astrology showing how many different charts can be drawn

> > that

> > > have nothing to do with Janma lagna as the first bhava, but am

> sure

> > you

> > > will then jump t o some other subject.

> > >

> > > If you could explain how shadvarga of Venus or Mars can be found

> in

> > Hora

> > > chart (or mere hora if you prefer that word), Hora being one of

> the

> > > shadvargas, as proposed by Varaha Mihira, I would explain how

> Lagna

> > > Shadvargake shloka can be explained ( provided you give the

> entire

> > > shloka with adhyaaya and shloka number).

> > >

> > >

> > > Chandrashekhar.

> > >

> > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > >

> > > > Difficulty to type in long interpretations is not to be

> > explained.I

> > > > do not know how it will become selective.

> > > >

> > > > I am bit concerned to see yourself drifting away from the main

> > > > point,in your recent posts.

> > > >

> > > > For eg - I am still awaiting your view on how to interpret Lagna

> > > > shadvargake,when aspects in vargas are not possible as per

> rules

> > set

> > > > by sages.BPHS and Late Santhanam.

> > > >

> > > > Inspite of this impossibility ,i don't know how we can think of

> > > > aspects in the first place.

> > > >

> > > > 1)Driksamstha was mentioned by you as example for ''Trimshamsha

> > > > chakra''.We have seen that it is not Trimshamsha chakra but

> rashi

> > > > chakra and navamsha combination.In Saravali too this is

> > > > mentioned.Dashadhayayi kara too has given the same meaning plus

> > > > Saravali as supportive.

> > > >

> > > > You were not agreeing.

> > > >

> > > > Now today i have seen from internet(www.brihaspati.net),English

> > > > translation of Saravali,where the shloka is interpreted exactly

> > the

> > > > same way as Dashadhyayi kara has done 800 years back.I request

> > > > members to go and read that.

> > > >

> > > > 2)Chapter 21 ,shloka 8 was mentioned by you as example for

> amshas

> > in

> > > > isolation.We have seen that it contains both rashi and amsha for

> > > > shoshee and together in karka or simha for another disease.

> > > >

> > > > 3)Today you are mentioning shloka 9.Which again is a

> combination

> > of

> > > > amshas and rashi combined with drishti in rashi.We have umpteen

> > > > shlokas in Saravali pointing to such drishtis.

> > > >

> > > > Thus i request you to kindly explain how Lagna shadvargake

> shloka

> > can

> > > > be explained.Thanks for clarifying that,Trimshamsha chakra was

> > your

> > > > personal view.

> > > >

> > > > As i have said nobody is opposing the drawing of amshas within

> > rashi

> > > > skeleton.Thus as you say drawing chart is pratyaksha.

> > > >

> > > > But Paramana was only seeked for shlokas talking about bhavas

> and

> > > > aspects.Riksha/Bhava/Rashi as synonyms makes the defintion

> > clear.Shri

> > > > PVR who himself is a Sanskrit scholar could only give one

> shloka -

> > > > Lagnashadvargake.

> > > >

> > > > Respect

> > > > Pradeep

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > >

> > > > > Had I had access to Dashaadhyaayi, I would not have troubled

> you

> > > > with

> > > > > all these queries. If you say that you did not reproduce the

> > > > comments

> > > > > given by Dashaadhyaayikar and only the gist of what he says,

> > does

> > > > it

> > > > > mean you have given the comments selectively?

> > > > >

> > > > > Did I say in any of my mails that Bhattotpala said anything

> > about

> > > > > Trimshamsha Chakra? And does Dashaadhyaayikar, specifically,

> > says

> > > > that

> > > > > no other chart than rasi chart exists in astrology as you are

> > > > implying?

> > > > > I would doubt he could say so. If you read 9th shloka of 21st

> > > > adhyaaya

> > > > > of Brihat jataka your doubt about navamsha drishti would

> > perhaps be

> > > > > clarified, should you accept it to mean what it does.

> > > > >

> > > > > As I said that you having made up your mind as to drawing any

> > other

> > > > > chart other than a rasi chart as wrong, nothing will come out

> of

> > > > this

> > > > > discussion. I really find it strange that even when almost all

> > > > > astrologers in India draw Navamasha chart as a matter of

> course,

> > > > you

> > > > > deny that such a chart can exist. This is the first time that

> I

> > am

> > > > > seeing that Pramana is demanded for what is Pratyaksha.

> > > > >

> > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > > >

> > > > > > You may check with some of your friends on the detailed

> level

> > of

> > > > > > explanation in Dashadhyayi.As you might have noted with

> > > > bHATTOTPALA,

> > > > > > it will be difficult for me to quote explantions spanning

> > pages.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Now i would love to know if Bhattotpala has mentioned any

> > > > Trimshamsha

> > > > > > chakra.Or was that your view.Bhattotpala can never say so.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Respect

> > > > > > Pradeep

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > <%40>

> > > > > > <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> > > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > When you do not accept the Sanskrit shlokas from Brihat

> > jataka,

> > > > > > which

> > > > > > > Dashaadhyaayikar comments upon, let apart BPHS, what

> purpose

> > > > can be

> > > > > > > served by giving the voluminous comments of Bhattotpala in

> > > > > > Sanskrit?

> > > > > > > Unlike Dashaadhyaayi (if you really gave the entire

> shlokas)

> > > > > > Bhattotpala

> > > > > > > goes into explanation of each word in the shloka and then

> > gives

> > > > his

> > > > > > > opinion of what he understands Varaha Mihira to have

> meant

> > by

> > > > that

> > > > > > > shloka. I had already given the English translation of

> what

> > both

> > > > > > > Bhattotpala and Sitaram Jha said in earlier mails. If you

> go

> > > > > > through our

> > > > > > > voluminous correspondence, you will certainly get the

> same.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > For the same reason i had provided the very Sanskrit

> > shloka

> > > > from

> > > > > > > > Dashadhyayikara regarding kemadruma etc.Similarly if

> you

> > can

> > > > give

> > > > > > > > sanskrit verses from Bhatotpala and hindi from Sitaram

> > > > jha ,issue

> > > > > > is

> > > > > > > > closed.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Respect

> > > > > > > > Pradeep

> > > > > > > >

> > > > <%40>

> > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> > > > > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Okay, let me put it in your words. As you

> > said " Bhattotpala

> > > > might

> > > > > > > > have

> > > > > > > > > been misunderstood (inadvertently) by some or it can

> be

> > your

> > > > > > view

> > > > > > > > about

> > > > > > > > > those translations. " Why should not Dashaadhyaayikar

> not

> > > > have

> > > > > > been

> > > > > > > > > misunderstood (inadvertently) by some or it can be

> your

> > > > views

> > > > > > about

> > > > > > > > > those translations? Any reason for the immunity? We

> have

> > > > already

> > > > > > > > sen

> > > > > > > > > misinterpretation of KaTaPaYaaDi rules by one scholar

> on

> > > > this

> > > > > > very

> > > > > > > > list,

> > > > > > > > > not so long ago.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Pls read again.I have said Bhatotpala Cannot be

> wrong

> > is

> > > > my

> > > > > > strong

> > > > > > > > > > conviction.You might have misread it in haste.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Respect

> > > > > > > > > > Pradeep

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > -- In

> > > > <%40>

> > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > <%40>,

> > Chandrashekhar

> > > > > > > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Think about it, if Bhattotpala can be wrong then

> so

> > can

> > > > be

> > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > Dashaadhyaayikar. Is there is any reason that he

> can

> > > > not be

> > > > > > if

> > > > > > > > > > > Bhattotpala can be wrong?

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > Dashadhayayi is not a classic and my view was

> it

> > is

> > > > more

> > > > > > than

> > > > > > > > a

> > > > > > > > > > mere

> > > > > > > > > > > > commentary as it has clear explanations,while

> > thinking

> > > > > > from a

> > > > > > > > > > > > students perspective.

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > As you know,inspite of having all those

> > > > commentaries,you

> > > > > > were

> > > > > > > > > > having

> > > > > > > > > > > > a view of trimshamsha chakra,which is a concern

> > for

> > > > > > > > me.Similarly

> > > > > > > > > > > > there were couple of other shlokas that you have

> > > > quoted as

> > > > > > > > > > examples.

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > Thus i feel Bhatotpala might have been

> > misunderstood

> > > > > > > > > > (inadvertently)

> > > > > > > > > > > > by some or it can be your view about those

> > > > > > > > translations.Bhatotpala

> > > > > > > > > > > > cannot be wrong is my stron conviction.

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > The sanskrit shlokas from dashadhyayi were

> quoted

> > by

> > > > > > me,for

> > > > > > > > > > example

> > > > > > > > > > > > cases of kemadruma,which clearly explains

> leaving

> > no

> > > > > > > > ambiguity.I

> > > > > > > > > > > > cannot think jeevasharma,Gargi,Sruthakeerthi

> etc

> > will

> > > > > > make the

> > > > > > > > > > same

> > > > > > > > > > > > mistake.

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > Thus i was talking about Sanskrit explanations

> > and not

> > > > > > > > > > > > malayalam.Sanskrit to Malayalam translation is

> > pretty

> > > > > > straight

> > > > > > > > > > > > forward due to many similarities.

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > I will give all my views with more clarity.

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > Respect

> > > > > > > > > > > > Pradeep

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been

> > removed]

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

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

> --

> > ----

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

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Version: 7.5.476 / Virus Database: 269.10.4/898 -

> > Release

> > > > > > Date:

> > > > > > > > 7/12/2007 4:08 PM

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

[Guest guest]

Dear Sri Prafulla,

 

This is a nice joke. End of day, I really enjoyed it.

 

Thanks,

Satya S Kolachina

 

, " Prafulla Gang " <jyotish

wrote:

>

> Dear Satya ji

>

> I wanted to avoid posting, but remembered a joke. See we are like

> farmers..so read:

>

> " I don't want a car, " said the farmer to the persistent

salesman. " I

> need a new cow. "

> " But you can't ride a cow along the streets. "

> " True. But I can't milk a new car, can I? "

>

>

> regards / Prafulla

>

> , " Satya Sai Kolachina "

> <skolachi@> wrote:

> >

> > Dear Sri Pradeep,

> >

> > You said :

> > > I will be happy if a learned scholar like you are sticking to

> > jyotish

> > > as compared to many people who resort to baseless allegations

as

> > they

> > > don' t have any answer.

> > >

> >

> > I would like to raise a concern here about the way you are

> > considering other knowledged astroloers.

> > (a) You seem to be looking down on other astrologers who do not

argue

> > with you. Please refrain yourself from making such comments.

Whatever

> > other astrologers had to say, they said.

> > (b) I see a tone of 'you are only saying what the sages have

said' in

> > your words and others are doing baseless arguments. This is

highly

> > inappropriate. I would just say that you are expressing your

opinion

> > on what sages might have said. It is just your opinion and

people do

> > not have to accept it. For lack of acceptence does not and

should not

> > mean that people are making baseless arguments.

> >

> > I would appreciate if you use the phrase " In my opinion, sages

have

> > said like this; or it is my interpretation that sages have said

this

> > way ... " . By the way you are expressing your views that all

those

> > great astrologers who have been using D-charts are doing

baseless

> > arguments.

> >

> > This is my last post in this topic. I always wanted to be away

from

> > this debate. But your words seem to be insulting other

astrologers,

> > and I have to come in and say this.

> >

> > I would appreciate if you understand the reality.

> >

> > Best Regards,

> >

> > Satya Sai Kolachina

> >

> >

> >

> > , " vijayadas_pradeep "

> > <vijayadas_pradeep@> wrote:

> > >

> > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > >

> > > If anybody in this list can show a single reference about

myslef

> > > stating K.N.Raoji not using aspects or D-Charts,i will stop

this

> > > discussion right now.Late Santhanam did raise concern about

aspects

> > > and did quote him.Shri Prafullas first question was the

> > observations

> > > from my discussions with Raoji.I did mention that he uses it.

> > >

> > > Hora - If you follow Varanasi version,Mars can Venus can have

Hora

> > in

> > > the 2nd from Karakamsha.

> > >

> > > Now i feel you may explain Lagna shadvargake

shloka.Chandrashekhar

> > ji

> > > if you try to understand this shloka and explain this thread

will

> > end

> > > here.It is very important.

> > >

> > > I will be happy if a learned scholar like you are sticking to

> > jyotish

> > > as compared to many people who resort to baseless allegations

as

> > they

> > > don' t have any answer.

> > >

> > > Objection is only w.r to varga sambandhas.Just because we draw

as a

> > > chart we cannot violate basic rules.

> > >

> > > Respect

> > > Pradeep

> > >

> > > , Chandrashekhar

> > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > >

> > > > If the entire comment on a shloka is not given then it is

obvious

> > > that

> > > > only selective position is given.

> > > >

> > > > I am, perhaps, perceived to be drifting away from the point

as

> > you

> > > are

> > > > bringing in too many points in the thread, and leaving them

off

> > > when

> > > > evidence to the contrary is given by any of the members to

the

> > > list. You

> > > > began by stating the Jaimini sutra as coming from BPHS and

then

> > > went on

> > > > to say that BPHS says that aspects are not possible in D-

Charts.

> > > Then

> > > > you said that KNR does not consider aspects in D-Charts.

Then

> > > followed

> > > > the argument that Santanam does not consider aspects in D-

Charts.

> > > > Whenever anybody produced evidence to the contrary you

changed

> > the

> > > > subject to quote someone else. Same happens with your

translation

> > > of

> > > > shlokas and also trying to project that some sage has

prohibited

> > > use of

> > > > any chart other than rasi chart. I had quoted on the

authority of

> > > > Parashara that he specifically tells to draw charts for

Bhava,

> > > Ghatika,

> > > > Hora lagnas and then you suddenly changed the direction of

the

> > > > discussion instead of accepting or rejecting the quotes.

Even the

> > > Amsha

> > > > and Amshaka differentiation that is brought in is more for

> > > confusion

> > > > than clarity. Amshaka is a degree of longitude and so is

Amsha

> > > though

> > > > Amsha also refers to a part of a whole. The difference

between

> > > their

> > > > meaning is negligible with reference to the discussion on

Vargas.

> > > >

> > > > This is why I had said that I would not like to take pains

to

> > write

> > > down

> > > > the whole commentary of a shloka by Bhattotpala when you

said

> > that

> > > > dashaadhyaayi also has longish comments. If this is so why

give

> > one

> > > > liners as the comment? If this is not selective, pray what

is?

> > > >

> > > > Similar is your insistence to change the grammar of Sanskrit

to

> > > suit

> > > > what you think a sage means. Merely insisting that aspects

are

> > not

> > > > possible without giving quotes from authorities and saying

that

> > no

> > > other

> > > > charts can be drawn when it is shown that sages did talk of

other

> > > charts

> > > > is not the way to arrive at any concrete conclusion in

matters

> > > astrological.

> > > >

> > > > If you think that Drik does not mean drishti, you are free

to

> > think

> > > > that. There is no reference to navamsha devoid of chakra and

> > rashi

> > > > chakra in the shloka. So we have not seen anything like that

as

> > you

> > > > claim. The shloka about trimshamsha is different from what

is now

> > > being

> > > > discussed and you will find it if you sift through the

voluminous

> > > > exchange of mail on this subject.

> > > >

> > > > I have not seen a single quotation showing that a chart with

a

> > > point

> > > > other than Lagna rasi can not be drawn. For want of that, it

is

> > not

> > > > possible to accept that no other chart other than rasi chart

can

> > be

> > > > drawn as is being advanced by you. I could give you

references

> > from

> > > > Kerala astrology showing how many different charts can be

drawn

> > > that

> > > > have nothing to do with Janma lagna as the first bhava, but

am

> > sure

> > > you

> > > > will then jump t o some other subject.

> > > >

> > > > If you could explain how shadvarga of Venus or Mars can be

found

> > in

> > > Hora

> > > > chart (or mere hora if you prefer that word), Hora being one

of

> > the

> > > > shadvargas, as proposed by Varaha Mihira, I would explain

how

> > Lagna

> > > > Shadvargake shloka can be explained ( provided you give the

> > entire

> > > > shloka with adhyaaya and shloka number).

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > >

> > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > >

> > > > > Difficulty to type in long interpretations is not to be

> > > explained.I

> > > > > do not know how it will become selective.

> > > > >

> > > > > I am bit concerned to see yourself drifting away from the

main

> > > > > point,in your recent posts.

> > > > >

> > > > > For eg - I am still awaiting your view on how to interpret

Lagna

> > > > > shadvargake,when aspects in vargas are not possible as per

> > rules

> > > set

> > > > > by sages.BPHS and Late Santhanam.

> > > > >

> > > > > Inspite of this impossibility ,i don't know how we can

think of

> > > > > aspects in the first place.

> > > > >

> > > > > 1)Driksamstha was mentioned by you as example

for ''Trimshamsha

> > > > > chakra''.We have seen that it is not Trimshamsha chakra

but

> > rashi

> > > > > chakra and navamsha combination.In Saravali too this is

> > > > > mentioned.Dashadhayayi kara too has given the same meaning

plus

> > > > > Saravali as supportive.

> > > > >

> > > > > You were not agreeing.

> > > > >

> > > > > Now today i have seen from internet

(www.brihaspati.net),English

> > > > > translation of Saravali,where the shloka is interpreted

exactly

> > > the

> > > > > same way as Dashadhyayi kara has done 800 years back.I

request

> > > > > members to go and read that.

> > > > >

> > > > > 2)Chapter 21 ,shloka 8 was mentioned by you as example for

> > amshas

> > > in

> > > > > isolation.We have seen that it contains both rashi and

amsha for

> > > > > shoshee and together in karka or simha for another disease.

> > > > >

> > > > > 3)Today you are mentioning shloka 9.Which again is a

> > combination

> > > of

> > > > > amshas and rashi combined with drishti in rashi.We have

umpteen

> > > > > shlokas in Saravali pointing to such drishtis.

> > > > >

> > > > > Thus i request you to kindly explain how Lagna shadvargake

> > shloka

> > > can

> > > > > be explained.Thanks for clarifying that,Trimshamsha chakra

was

> > > your

> > > > > personal view.

> > > > >

> > > > > As i have said nobody is opposing the drawing of amshas

within

> > > rashi

> > > > > skeleton.Thus as you say drawing chart is pratyaksha.

> > > > >

> > > > > But Paramana was only seeked for shlokas talking about

bhavas

> > and

> > > > > aspects.Riksha/Bhava/Rashi as synonyms makes the defintion

> > > clear.Shri

> > > > > PVR who himself is a Sanskrit scholar could only give one

> > shloka -

> > > > > Lagnashadvargake.

> > > > >

> > > > > Respect

> > > > > Pradeep

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Had I had access to Dashaadhyaayi, I would not have

troubled

> > you

> > > > > with

> > > > > > all these queries. If you say that you did not reproduce

the

> > > > > comments

> > > > > > given by Dashaadhyaayikar and only the gist of what he

says,

> > > does

> > > > > it

> > > > > > mean you have given the comments selectively?

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Did I say in any of my mails that Bhattotpala said

anything

> > > about

> > > > > > Trimshamsha Chakra? And does Dashaadhyaayikar,

specifically,

> > > says

> > > > > that

> > > > > > no other chart than rasi chart exists in astrology as

you are

> > > > > implying?

> > > > > > I would doubt he could say so. If you read 9th shloka of

21st

> > > > > adhyaaya

> > > > > > of Brihat jataka your doubt about navamsha drishti would

> > > perhaps be

> > > > > > clarified, should you accept it to mean what it does.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > As I said that you having made up your mind as to

drawing any

> > > other

> > > > > > chart other than a rasi chart as wrong, nothing will

come out

> > of

> > > > > this

> > > > > > discussion. I really find it strange that even when

almost all

> > > > > > astrologers in India draw Navamasha chart as a matter of

> > course,

> > > > > you

> > > > > > deny that such a chart can exist. This is the first time

that

> > I

> > > am

> > > > > > seeing that Pramana is demanded for what is Pratyaksha.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > You may check with some of your friends on the

detailed

> > level

> > > of

> > > > > > > explanation in Dashadhyayi.As you might have noted with

> > > > > bHATTOTPALA,

> > > > > > > it will be difficult for me to quote explantions

spanning

> > > pages.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Now i would love to know if Bhattotpala has mentioned

any

> > > > > Trimshamsha

> > > > > > > chakra.Or was that your view.Bhattotpala can never say

so.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Respect

> > > > > > > Pradeep

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > <%40>, Chandrashekhar

> > > > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > When you do not accept the Sanskrit shlokas from

Brihat

> > > jataka,

> > > > > > > which

> > > > > > > > Dashaadhyaayikar comments upon, let apart BPHS, what

> > purpose

> > > > > can be

> > > > > > > > served by giving the voluminous comments of

Bhattotpala in

> > > > > > > Sanskrit?

> > > > > > > > Unlike Dashaadhyaayi (if you really gave the entire

> > shlokas)

> > > > > > > Bhattotpala

> > > > > > > > goes into explanation of each word in the shloka and

then

> > > gives

> > > > > his

> > > > > > > > opinion of what he understands Varaha Mihira to have

> > meant

> > > by

> > > > > that

> > > > > > > > shloka. I had already given the English translation

of

> > what

> > > both

> > > > > > > > Bhattotpala and Sitaram Jha said in earlier mails.

If you

> > go

> > > > > > > through our

> > > > > > > > voluminous correspondence, you will certainly get

the

> > same.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > For the same reason i had provided the very

Sanskrit

> > > shloka

> > > > > from

> > > > > > > > > Dashadhyayikara regarding kemadruma etc.Similarly

if

> > you

> > > can

> > > > > give

> > > > > > > > > sanskrit verses from Bhatotpala and hindi from

Sitaram

> > > > > jha ,issue

> > > > > > > is

> > > > > > > > > closed.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Respect

> > > > > > > > > Pradeep

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > <%40>,

Chandrashekhar

> > > > > > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Okay, let me put it in your words. As you

> > > said " Bhattotpala

> > > > > might

> > > > > > > > > have

> > > > > > > > > > been misunderstood (inadvertently) by some or it

can

> > be

> > > your

> > > > > > > view

> > > > > > > > > about

> > > > > > > > > > those translations. " Why should not

Dashaadhyaayikar

> > not

> > > > > have

> > > > > > > been

> > > > > > > > > > misunderstood (inadvertently) by some or it can

be

> > your

> > > > > views

> > > > > > > about

> > > > > > > > > > those translations? Any reason for the immunity?

We

> > have

> > > > > already

> > > > > > > > > sen

> > > > > > > > > > misinterpretation of KaTaPaYaaDi rules by one

scholar

> > on

> > > > > this

> > > > > > > very

> > > > > > > > > list,

> > > > > > > > > > not so long ago.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Pls read again.I have said Bhatotpala Cannot

be

> > wrong

> > > is

> > > > > my

> > > > > > > strong

> > > > > > > > > > > conviction.You might have misread it in haste.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Respect

> > > > > > > > > > > Pradeep

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > -- In

> > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > <%40>

> > > > > > > > > > > <%40>,

> > > Chandrashekhar

> > > > > > > > > > > <chandrashekhar46@> wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Pradeep,

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > Think about it, if Bhattotpala can be wrong

then

> > so

> > > can

> > > > > be

> > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > > > > Dashaadhyaayikar. Is there is any reason

that he

> > can

> > > > > not be

> > > > > > > if

> > > > > > > > > > > > Bhattotpala can be wrong?

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > Chandrashekhar.

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > vijayadas_pradeep wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Chandrashekhar ji

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Dashadhayayi is not a classic and my view

was

> > it

> > > is

> > > > > more

> > > > > > > than

> > > > > > > > > a

> > > > > > > > > > > mere

> > > > > > > > > > > > > commentary as it has clear

explanations,while

> > > thinking

> > > > > > > from a

> > > > > > > > > > > > > students perspective.

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > As you know,inspite of having all those

> > > > > commentaries,you

> > > > > > > were

> > > > > > > > > > > having

> > > > > > > > > > > > > a view of trimshamsha chakra,which is a

concern

> > > for

> > > > > > > > > me.Similarly

> > > > > > > > > > > > > there were couple of other shlokas that

you have

> > > > > quoted as

> > > > > > > > > > > examples.

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Thus i feel Bhatotpala might have been

> > > misunderstood

> > > > > > > > > > > (inadvertently)

> > > > > > > > > > > > > by some or it can be your view about those

> > > > > > > > > translations.Bhatotpala

> > > > > > > > > > > > > cannot be wrong is my stron conviction.

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > The sanskrit shlokas from dashadhyayi were

> > quoted

> > > by

> > > > > > > me,for

> > > > > > > > > > > example

> > > > > > > > > > > > > cases of kemadruma,which clearly explains

> > leaving

> > > no

> > > > > > > > > ambiguity.I

> > > > > > > > > > > > > cannot think

jeevasharma,Gargi,Sruthakeerthi

> > etc

> > > will

> > > > > > > make the

> > > > > > > > > > > same

> > > > > > > > > > > > > mistake.

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Thus i was talking about Sanskrit

explanations

> > > and not

> > > > > > > > > > > > > malayalam.Sanskrit to Malayalam

translation is

> > > pretty

> > > > > > > straight

> > > > > > > > > > > > > forward due to many similarities.

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > I will give all my views with more clarity.

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Respect

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Pradeep

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been

> > > removed]

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

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

-----

> > --

> > > ----

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

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Version: 7.5.476 / Virus Database:

269.10.4/898 -

> > > Release

> > > > > > > Date:

> > > > > > > > > 7/12/2007 4:08 PM

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been

removed]

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

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

-----

> > --

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

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Version: 7.5.476 / Virus Database: 269.10.4/898 -

> > Release

> > > > > Date:

> > > > > > > 7/12/2007 4:08 PM

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >