Guest guest Posted July 11, 2007 Report Share Posted July 11, 2007 Notable Horoscopes by BV raman Page 161 Horoscope of Sri RamKrishna Paramhanasa a sentence among the whole article give below- (Now I dont waste my time in searching for shlokas) ----- Venus is not subject to any Malefic combinations or aspects both in Rasi and navamsa. he is of course debilitated in Navamsha------ Thats sums up, one part of the debate . Or does it not ? So any comments ? regards, Bhaskar. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 11, 2007 Report Share Posted July 11, 2007 Dear Bhaskar ji Every one knows that Dr.Raman takes aspects in navamsha.Did anyone disagree with this.Kindly read what is being debated. We are talking about whether aspects are possible.Late Santhanam while translating BPHS shlokas has sauid ,it is not possible. Regds Pradeep , " Bhaskar " <bhaskar_jyotish wrote: > > Notable Horoscopes by BV raman > Page 161 > Horoscope of Sri RamKrishna Paramhanasa > > a sentence among the whole article give below- > (Now I dont waste my time in searching for shlokas) > > ----- Venus is not subject to any Malefic combinations or > aspects both in Rasi and navamsa. he is of course > debilitated in Navamsha------ > > Thats sums up, one part of the debate . Or does it not ? > So any comments ? > > regards, > Bhaskar. > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 11, 2007 Report Share Posted July 11, 2007 Dear Pradeep ji I have already quoted shri Santhanam's view through case studies by him, where he has explained opposition. I request - please do not misquote him. regards / Prafulla , " vijayadas_pradeep " <vijayadas_pradeep wrote: > > Dear Bhaskar ji > > Every one knows that Dr.Raman takes aspects in navamsha.Did anyone > disagree with this.Kindly read what is being debated. > We are talking about whether aspects are possible.Late Santhanam > while translating BPHS shlokas has sauid ,it is not possible. > > Regds > Pradeep > > , " Bhaskar " <bhaskar_jyotish@> > wrote: > > > > Notable Horoscopes by BV raman > > Page 161 > > Horoscope of Sri RamKrishna Paramhanasa > > > > a sentence among the whole article give below- > > (Now I dont waste my time in searching for shlokas) > > > > ----- Venus is not subject to any Malefic combinations or > > aspects both in Rasi and navamsa. he is of course > > debilitated in Navamsha------ > > > > Thats sums up, one part of the debate . Or does it not ? > > So any comments ? > > > > regards, > > Bhaskar. > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 11, 2007 Report Share Posted July 11, 2007 Dear pradeepji, Okay, then are we to suppose that Dr.BV Raman was wrong in his book where he has taken 76 Charts of great personalities, and used Rasi and navamsha Charts, for the delienation of his reports on these great men ? I do not mean that a human being cannot be wrong, but how do we understand that he was wrong ? Where is the Pramana ? And have we established ourselves better than Shri BV raman, to comment that his methods were not right ? there was the controversy of Ayanamsha, he used, I do know , but in logical allpication of analysis, how does one think that he can be wrong ? I am unable to understand. Please treat this discussion as between forum colleagues, strictly and enjoy the Jyotish ,but do not take it in any other way, please. Now finally are we supposed to follow Shri BV raman, or not ? regards, Bhaskar. , " vijayadas_pradeep " <vijayadas_pradeep wrote: > > Dear Bhaskar ji > > Every one knows that Dr.Raman takes aspects in navamsha.Did anyone > disagree with this.Kindly read what is being debated. > We are talking about whether aspects are possible.Late Santhanam > while translating BPHS shlokas has sauid ,it is not possible. > > Regds > Pradeep > > , " Bhaskar " <bhaskar_jyotish@> > wrote: > > > > Notable Horoscopes by BV raman > > Page 161 > > Horoscope of Sri RamKrishna Paramhanasa > > > > a sentence among the whole article give below- > > (Now I dont waste my time in searching for shlokas) > > > > ----- Venus is not subject to any Malefic combinations or > > aspects both in Rasi and navamsa. he is of course > > debilitated in Navamsha------ > > > > Thats sums up, one part of the debate . Or does it not ? > > So any comments ? > > > > regards, > > Bhaskar. > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 11, 2007 Report Share Posted July 11, 2007 Dear Prafulla ji It is your assumption regarding aspects by showing opposition etc.I have quoted,late Santhanams own views in BPHS regarding aspects.It was not a mispelled word as he said ,i am unable to understand this and fully accept my inability.He said Parashara has explained in a previous chapter that how aspects happen and as per that ,aspects in varga chakras are impossible. So pls understand that i am not misquoting anyone. Regds Pradeep , " Prafulla Gang " <jyotish wrote: > > Dear Pradeep ji > > I have already quoted shri Santhanam's view through case studies by > him, where he has explained opposition. > > I request - please do not misquote him. > > regards / Prafulla > > , " vijayadas_pradeep " > <vijayadas_pradeep@> wrote: > > > > Dear Bhaskar ji > > > > Every one knows that Dr.Raman takes aspects in navamsha.Did anyone > > disagree with this.Kindly read what is being debated. > > We are talking about whether aspects are possible.Late Santhanam > > while translating BPHS shlokas has sauid ,it is not possible. > > > > Regds > > Pradeep > > > > , " Bhaskar " <bhaskar_jyotish@> > > wrote: > > > > > > Notable Horoscopes by BV raman > > > Page 161 > > > Horoscope of Sri RamKrishna Paramhanasa > > > > > > a sentence among the whole article give below- > > > (Now I dont waste my time in searching for shlokas) > > > > > > ----- Venus is not subject to any Malefic combinations or > > > aspects both in Rasi and navamsa. he is of course > > > debilitated in Navamsha------ > > > > > > Thats sums up, one part of the debate . Or does it not ? > > > So any comments ? > > > > > > regards, > > > Bhaskar. > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 11, 2007 Report Share Posted July 11, 2007 Dear Bhaskar ji We respect Dr.Raman for his contributionsin astrology.We are not even rats in front of him. Whether it is shri B.V.Raman or K.N.Raoji we can express our opinion if our view is honest and there are sufficient tarkas and pramanas.But still as you ,give weightage to names and not views,i have to use the same logic. Please read the views about Dashadhyayi,in prashnamarga and that of DR.Raman. I cannot find any reference on such varga chakras.If Dr.Raman would had read dashsdhyayi,it would had been a different story. Regds Pradeep , " Bhaskar " <bhaskar_jyotish wrote: > > Dear pradeepji, > > Okay, then are we to suppose that Dr.BV Raman > was wrong in his book where he has taken 76 > Charts of great personalities, and used > Rasi and navamsha Charts, for the delienation > of his reports on these great men ? > > I do not mean that a human being cannot be wrong, > but how do we understand that he was wrong ? > Where is the Pramana ? And have we established > ourselves better than Shri BV raman, to comment > that his methods were not right ? > > there was the controversy of Ayanamsha, he used, > I do know , but in logical allpication of analysis, > how does one think that he can be wrong ? > > I am unable to understand. > > Please treat this discussion as between forum colleagues, > strictly and enjoy the Jyotish ,but do not take it in > any other way, please. > > Now finally are we supposed to follow Shri BV raman, > or not ? > > regards, > Bhaskar. > > > > > > , " vijayadas_pradeep " > <vijayadas_pradeep@> wrote: > > > > Dear Bhaskar ji > > > > Every one knows that Dr.Raman takes aspects in navamsha.Did anyone > > disagree with this.Kindly read what is being debated. > > We are talking about whether aspects are possible.Late Santhanam > > while translating BPHS shlokas has sauid ,it is not possible. > > > > Regds > > Pradeep > > > > , " Bhaskar " <bhaskar_jyotish@> > > wrote: > > > > > > Notable Horoscopes by BV raman > > > Page 161 > > > Horoscope of Sri RamKrishna Paramhanasa > > > > > > a sentence among the whole article give below- > > > (Now I dont waste my time in searching for shlokas) > > > > > > ----- Venus is not subject to any Malefic combinations or > > > aspects both in Rasi and navamsa. he is of course > > > debilitated in Navamsha------ > > > > > > Thats sums up, one part of the debate . Or does it not ? > > > So any comments ? > > > > > > regards, > > > Bhaskar. > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 12, 2007 Report Share Posted July 12, 2007 Dear Pradeep ji I can only suggest you to refer to his articles in old issues of TOA. I am quoting his, as in my personal discussions - he has referred navamsha combinations by mutual aspects also. What is opposition in the chart? is it not aspect? How am i quoting it wrong? regards / Prafulla , " vijayadas_pradeep " <vijayadas_pradeep wrote: > > Dear Prafulla ji > > It is your assumption regarding aspects by showing opposition etc.I > have quoted,late Santhanams own views in BPHS regarding aspects.It > was not a mispelled word as he said ,i am unable to understand this > and fully accept my inability.He said Parashara has explained in a > previous chapter that how aspects happen and as per that ,aspects in > varga chakras are impossible. > > So pls understand that i am not misquoting anyone. > > Regds > Pradeep > > , " Prafulla Gang " <jyotish@> > wrote: > > > > Dear Pradeep ji > > > > I have already quoted shri Santhanam's view through case studies by > > him, where he has explained opposition. > > > > I request - please do not misquote him. > > > > regards / Prafulla > > > > , " vijayadas_pradeep " > > <vijayadas_pradeep@> wrote: > > > > > > Dear Bhaskar ji > > > > > > Every one knows that Dr.Raman takes aspects in navamsha.Did > anyone > > > disagree with this.Kindly read what is being debated. > > > We are talking about whether aspects are possible.Late Santhanam > > > while translating BPHS shlokas has sauid ,it is not possible. > > > > > > Regds > > > Pradeep > > > > > > , " Bhaskar " <bhaskar_jyotish@> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > Notable Horoscopes by BV raman > > > > Page 161 > > > > Horoscope of Sri RamKrishna Paramhanasa > > > > > > > > a sentence among the whole article give below- > > > > (Now I dont waste my time in searching for shlokas) > > > > > > > > ----- Venus is not subject to any Malefic combinations or > > > > aspects both in Rasi and navamsa. he is of course > > > > debilitated in Navamsha------ > > > > > > > > Thats sums up, one part of the debate . Or does it not ? > > > > So any comments ? > > > > > > > > regards, > > > > Bhaskar. > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 12, 2007 Report Share Posted July 12, 2007 Dear Prafulla ji Opposition is having amshas in rashis which are in 1/7.Aspect are based on rashi dispositions.Thus it is your assumption.(Rule Parashara -Late Santhanam translation). For the full astrological community - Late Santhanam has written in bold letters,in the trasltion of magnum Opus BPHS,that as per rules given by mahamuni parshara,aspects are impossible.Do we need a better proof.Are you serious about pramana or have you really maup your mind.If latter is the case,re is no point in discussion. Rashi,Riksha is not acceptable.Meshadi RASHIGE is not acceptable.Bhrigowankaraka Varga(Mars and Venus) is not acceptable.Late Santhanams view BPHS is not acceptable.Dashadhyayi hailed by prashana Marga an DR.Raman are not acceptable.Do you know the parampara in which Thalakkulathu Bhattathiri who wrote Dashadhayayi.Do we have any clue about the Sansrit knowledge they had.We can never even imagine. We cannot accept giant names like GARGA.We cannot accept Sruthakeerthi.We cannot accept Jeevasharma.Do weknow that the were giant figures who got knowedge from uncorrupted parmpara. Is this discussion about seeking truth or to defend some discrepencie that have crept through at any cost.I really doubt. Do you think i have to write this again and again.Pls check with shri PVR Narasimha Rao(who had given me reference -Late Santahanam). Regds Pradeep oup , " Prafulla Gang " <jyotish wrote: > > Dear Pradeep ji > > I can only suggest you to refer to his articles in old issues of TOA. > I am quoting his, as in my personal discussions - he has referred > navamsha combinations by mutual aspects also. > > What is opposition in the chart? is it not aspect? How am i quoting it > wrong? > > regards / Prafulla > > , " vijayadas_pradeep " > <vijayadas_pradeep@> wrote: > > > > Dear Prafulla ji > > > > It is your assumption regarding aspects by showing opposition etc.I > > have quoted,late Santhanams own views in BPHS regarding aspects.It > > was not a mispelled word as he said ,i am unable to understand this > > and fully accept my inability.He said Parashara has explained in a > > previous chapter that how aspects happen and as per that ,aspects in > > varga chakras are impossible. > > > > So pls understand that i am not misquoting anyone. > > > > Regds > > Pradeep > > > > , " Prafulla Gang " <jyotish@> > > wrote: > > > > > > Dear Pradeep ji > > > > > > I have already quoted shri Santhanam's view through case studies by > > > him, where he has explained opposition. > > > > > > I request - please do not misquote him. > > > > > > regards / Prafulla > > > > > > , " vijayadas_pradeep " > > > <vijayadas_pradeep@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Dear Bhaskar ji > > > > > > > > Every one knows that Dr.Raman takes aspects in navamsha.Did > > anyone > > > > disagree with this.Kindly read what is being debated. > > > > We are talking about whether aspects are possible.Late Santhanam > > > > while translating BPHS shlokas has sauid ,it is not possible. > > > > > > > > Regds > > > > Pradeep > > > > > > > > , " Bhaskar " <bhaskar_jyotish@> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Notable Horoscopes by BV raman > > > > > Page 161 > > > > > Horoscope of Sri RamKrishna Paramhanasa > > > > > > > > > > a sentence among the whole article give below- > > > > > (Now I dont waste my time in searching for shlokas) > > > > > > > > > > ----- Venus is not subject to any Malefic combinations or > > > > > aspects both in Rasi and navamsa. he is of course > > > > > debilitated in Navamsha------ > > > > > > > > > > Thats sums up, one part of the debate . Or does it not ? > > > > > So any comments ? > > > > > > > > > > regards, > > > > > Bhaskar. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 12, 2007 Report Share Posted July 12, 2007 Dear Pradeep ji Regarding Late Shri Santhanam - I mentioned what I read in TOA articles and what I had discussed with him. I also mentioned on guru venus in 1/7 mutual aspects - in D9 givinh marital happiness in the example. Understandably, I can talk only - what I have read and/or discussed with them. I did not comment on his BPHS. Yes, I did quote his Deva Keralam - and request you to refer all three volumes. If you do not want to believe on his own articles in TOA - then, what can I do? But it is not prudent to misquote him - that he did not consider aspects. That is the reason - I asked for your personal experiences with Shri KN Rao - so that we may understand his opinion. Regarding other books you quoted - I never commented on any of them. Since I have not read them - how can I comment on their interpretation. Throughout the debate - I have mentioned that, Late Santhanam, Shri BV Raman, Shri KN Rao, Shri Sanjay Rath, Shri CS Patel, Shri VK Choudhry etc - have considered all vargas as seperate charts, they have used combinations / aspects in D charts. and all these are quite clear in their writings. and Also - I presume that, most of these great authors must have explored all possible available literature - before forming their opinion. And also - they must have tested these interpretation rules in their observational jyotish - before producing in their books. The problem is not in truth or untruth; or in correct or incorrect interpretation. But heavily lies in the interpretation model. My contention is not on the fact that - Navamsa is not mapped on rashi (as this is one the method of Navamsa interpretation just like navamsa dispositor theory) - but on your contention that a. there is No Divisional chart chakras b. These can not be interpreted as rasi chakra I also observed Shri KN Rao is misquoted through selected references. Let us hope - that this endless debate is concluded through predictive application in your case studies. For me - what eventually works is the only acceptable mode. regards / Prafulla , " vijayadas_pradeep " <vijayadas_pradeep wrote: > > Dear Prafulla ji > > Opposition is having amshas in rashis which are in 1/7.Aspect are > based on rashi dispositions.Thus it is your assumption.(Rule > Parashara -Late Santhanam translation). > > For the full astrological community - Late Santhanam has written in > bold letters,in the trasltion of magnum Opus BPHS,that as per rules > given by mahamuni parshara,aspects are impossible.Do we need a better > proof.Are you serious about pramana or have you really maup your > mind.If latter is the case,re is no point in discussion. > > Rashi,Riksha is not acceptable.Meshadi RASHIGE is not > acceptable.Bhrigowankaraka Varga(Mars and Venus) is not > acceptable.Late Santhanams view BPHS is not acceptable.Dashadhyayi > hailed by prashana Marga an DR.Raman are not acceptable.Do you know > the parampara in which Thalakkulathu Bhattathiri who wrote > Dashadhayayi.Do we have any clue about the Sansrit knowledge they > had.We can never even imagine. > > We cannot accept giant names like GARGA.We cannot accept > Sruthakeerthi.We cannot accept Jeevasharma.Do weknow that the were > giant figures who got knowedge from uncorrupted parmpara. > > Is this discussion about seeking truth or to defend some discrepencie > that have crept through at any cost.I really doubt. > > Do you think i have to write this again and again.Pls check with shri > PVR Narasimha Rao(who had given me reference -Late Santahanam). > > Regds > Pradeep > > oup , " Prafulla Gang " <jyotish@> wrote: > > > > Dear Pradeep ji > > > > I can only suggest you to refer to his articles in old issues of > TOA. > > I am quoting his, as in my personal discussions - he has referred > > navamsha combinations by mutual aspects also. > > > > What is opposition in the chart? is it not aspect? How am i quoting > it > > wrong? > > > > regards / Prafulla > > > > , " vijayadas_pradeep " > > <vijayadas_pradeep@> wrote: > > > > > > Dear Prafulla ji > > > > > > It is your assumption regarding aspects by showing opposition > etc.I > > > have quoted,late Santhanams own views in BPHS regarding > aspects.It > > > was not a mispelled word as he said ,i am unable to understand > this > > > and fully accept my inability.He said Parashara has explained in > a > > > previous chapter that how aspects happen and as per that ,aspects > in > > > varga chakras are impossible. > > > > > > So pls understand that i am not misquoting anyone. > > > > > > Regds > > > Pradeep > > > > > > , " Prafulla Gang " <jyotish@> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > Dear Pradeep ji > > > > > > > > I have already quoted shri Santhanam's view through case > studies by > > > > him, where he has explained opposition. > > > > > > > > I request - please do not misquote him. > > > > > > > > regards / Prafulla > > > > > > > > , " vijayadas_pradeep " > > > > <vijayadas_pradeep@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Dear Bhaskar ji > > > > > > > > > > Every one knows that Dr.Raman takes aspects in navamsha.Did > > > anyone > > > > > disagree with this.Kindly read what is being debated. > > > > > We are talking about whether aspects are possible.Late > Santhanam > > > > > while translating BPHS shlokas has sauid ,it is not possible. > > > > > > > > > > Regds > > > > > Pradeep > > > > > > > > > > , " Bhaskar " > <bhaskar_jyotish@> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Notable Horoscopes by BV raman > > > > > > Page 161 > > > > > > Horoscope of Sri RamKrishna Paramhanasa > > > > > > > > > > > > a sentence among the whole article give below- > > > > > > (Now I dont waste my time in searching for shlokas) > > > > > > > > > > > > ----- Venus is not subject to any Malefic combinations or > > > > > > aspects both in Rasi and navamsa. he is of course > > > > > > debilitated in Navamsha------ > > > > > > > > > > > > Thats sums up, one part of the debate . Or does it not ? > > > > > > So any comments ? > > > > > > > > > > > > regards, > > > > > > Bhaskar. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 12, 2007 Report Share Posted July 12, 2007 Dear Prafulla ji Under his notes, Sri Santhanam wrote the following(BPHS): " ASPECTS are referred to in the DIVISIONAL CHARTS here. I am UNABLE to fully conceive the LOGIC in ASPECTS in DIVISIONAL charts for the SAGE himself referred to the longitudinal aspectual evaluations in an earlier chapter. Without commenting further on this controversial aspect I leave it at that, accepting my limitations to explain this fully. " Can you pls understand this.On the other hand you are quoting amshas on rashis which are in 1/7.Did i misquote anything?I talking about his opinion written in English and with crystal clarity on ASPECTS within Divisional chart. Hope you have seen the case of Gordon Brown.Can you pls see that all the conditions for Rajayoga are satisfied. Regds Pradeep , " Prafulla Gang " <jyotish wrote: > > Dear Pradeep ji > > Regarding Late Shri Santhanam - I mentioned what I read in TOA > articles and what I had discussed with him. I also mentioned on guru > venus in 1/7 mutual aspects - in D9 givinh marital happiness in the > example. Understandably, I can talk only - what I have read and/or > discussed with them. > > > I did not comment on his BPHS. Yes, I did quote his Deva Keralam - and > request you to refer all three volumes. > > If you do not want to believe on his own articles in TOA - then, what > can I do? But it is not prudent to misquote him - that he did not > consider aspects. > > That is the reason - I asked for your personal experiences with Shri > KN Rao - so that we may understand his opinion. > > Regarding other books you quoted - I never commented on any of them. > Since I have not read them - how can I comment on their interpretation. > > Throughout the debate - I have mentioned that, Late Santhanam, Shri BV > Raman, Shri KN Rao, Shri Sanjay Rath, Shri CS Patel, Shri VK Choudhry > etc - have considered all vargas as seperate charts, they have used > combinations / aspects in D charts. and all these are quite clear in > their writings. and Also - I presume that, most of these great authors > must have explored all possible available literature - before forming > their opinion. And also - they must have tested these interpretation > rules in their observational jyotish - before producing in their books. > > The problem is not in truth or untruth; or in correct or incorrect > interpretation. But heavily lies in the interpretation model. My > contention is not on the fact that - Navamsa is not mapped on rashi > (as this is one the method of Navamsa interpretation just like navamsa > dispositor theory) - but on your contention that > > a. there is No Divisional chart chakras > b. These can not be interpreted as rasi chakra > > I also observed Shri KN Rao is misquoted through selected references. > > Let us hope - that this endless debate is concluded through predictive > application in your case studies. > > For me - what eventually works is the only acceptable mode. > > regards / Prafulla > > , " vijayadas_pradeep " > <vijayadas_pradeep@> wrote: > > > > Dear Prafulla ji > > > > Opposition is having amshas in rashis which are in 1/7.Aspect are > > based on rashi dispositions.Thus it is your assumption.(Rule > > Parashara -Late Santhanam translation). > > > > For the full astrological community - Late Santhanam has written in > > bold letters,in the trasltion of magnum Opus BPHS,that as per rules > > given by mahamuni parshara,aspects are impossible.Do we need a better > > proof.Are you serious about pramana or have you really maup your > > mind.If latter is the case,re is no point in discussion. > > > > Rashi,Riksha is not acceptable.Meshadi RASHIGE is not > > acceptable.Bhrigowankaraka Varga(Mars and Venus) is not > > acceptable.Late Santhanams view BPHS is not acceptable.Dashadhyayi > > hailed by prashana Marga an DR.Raman are not acceptable.Do you know > > the parampara in which Thalakkulathu Bhattathiri who wrote > > Dashadhayayi.Do we have any clue about the Sansrit knowledge they > > had.We can never even imagine. > > > > We cannot accept giant names like GARGA.We cannot accept > > Sruthakeerthi.We cannot accept Jeevasharma.Do weknow that the were > > giant figures who got knowedge from uncorrupted parmpara. > > > > Is this discussion about seeking truth or to defend some discrepencie > > that have crept through at any cost.I really doubt. > > > > Do you think i have to write this again and again.Pls check with shri > > PVR Narasimha Rao(who had given me reference -Late Santahanam). > > > > Regds > > Pradeep > > > > oup , " Prafulla Gang " <jyotish@> wrote: > > > > > > Dear Pradeep ji > > > > > > I can only suggest you to refer to his articles in old issues of > > TOA. > > > I am quoting his, as in my personal discussions - he has referred > > > navamsha combinations by mutual aspects also. > > > > > > What is opposition in the chart? is it not aspect? How am i quoting > > it > > > wrong? > > > > > > regards / Prafulla > > > > > > , " vijayadas_pradeep " > > > <vijayadas_pradeep@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Dear Prafulla ji > > > > > > > > It is your assumption regarding aspects by showing opposition > > etc.I > > > > have quoted,late Santhanams own views in BPHS regarding > > aspects.It > > > > was not a mispelled word as he said ,i am unable to understand > > this > > > > and fully accept my inability.He said Parashara has explained in > > a > > > > previous chapter that how aspects happen and as per that ,aspects > > in > > > > varga chakras are impossible. > > > > > > > > So pls understand that i am not misquoting anyone. > > > > > > > > Regds > > > > Pradeep > > > > > > > > , " Prafulla Gang " <jyotish@> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Dear Pradeep ji > > > > > > > > > > I have already quoted shri Santhanam's view through case > > studies by > > > > > him, where he has explained opposition. > > > > > > > > > > I request - please do not misquote him. > > > > > > > > > > regards / Prafulla > > > > > > > > > > , " vijayadas_pradeep " > > > > > <vijayadas_pradeep@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Bhaskar ji > > > > > > > > > > > > Every one knows that Dr.Raman takes aspects in navamsha.Did > > > > anyone > > > > > > disagree with this.Kindly read what is being debated. > > > > > > We are talking about whether aspects are possible.Late > > Santhanam > > > > > > while translating BPHS shlokas has sauid ,it is not possible. > > > > > > > > > > > > Regds > > > > > > Pradeep > > > > > > > > > > > > , " Bhaskar " > > <bhaskar_jyotish@> > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Notable Horoscopes by BV raman > > > > > > > Page 161 > > > > > > > Horoscope of Sri RamKrishna Paramhanasa > > > > > > > > > > > > > > a sentence among the whole article give below- > > > > > > > (Now I dont waste my time in searching for shlokas) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ----- Venus is not subject to any Malefic combinations or > > > > > > > aspects both in Rasi and navamsa. he is of course > > > > > > > debilitated in Navamsha------ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thats sums up, one part of the debate . Or does it not ? > > > > > > > So any comments ? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > regards, > > > > > > > Bhaskar. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 12, 2007 Report Share Posted July 12, 2007 Dear Pradeepji, So primafacie considering the below note by Santhanamji, wherein he has used the words " I am UNABLE to fully conceive the LOGIC in ASPECTS in DIVISIONAL chart " does it not mean that he has neither refused nor proposed to this theory ? (Only with reference to this post, because if i give another refrence by the same person, then it again may be proved otherwise). How can we, then categorically write,state,proclaim or demand, that aspects looking in Divisional Charts is not right, outright ? regards, bhaskar. , " vijayadas_pradeep " <vijayadas_pradeep wrote: > > Dear Prafulla ji > > Under his notes, Sri Santhanam wrote the following(BPHS): > > " ASPECTS are referred to in the DIVISIONAL CHARTS here. I am UNABLE > to fully conceive the LOGIC in ASPECTS in DIVISIONAL charts for the > SAGE himself referred to the longitudinal aspectual evaluations in > an earlier chapter. Without commenting further on this controversial > aspect I leave it at that, accepting my limitations to explain this > fully. " > > > Can you pls understand this.On the other hand you are quoting amshas > on rashis which are in 1/7.Did i misquote anything?I talking about > his opinion written in English and with crystal clarity on ASPECTS > within Divisional chart. > > Hope you have seen the case of Gordon Brown.Can you pls see that all > the conditions for Rajayoga are satisfied. > > Regds > Pradeep > , " Prafulla Gang " <jyotish@> > wrote: > > > > Dear Pradeep ji > > > > Regarding Late Shri Santhanam - I mentioned what I read in TOA > > articles and what I had discussed with him. I also mentioned on > guru > > venus in 1/7 mutual aspects - in D9 givinh marital happiness in the > > example. Understandably, I can talk only - what I have read and/or > > discussed with them. > > > > > > I did not comment on his BPHS. Yes, I did quote his Deva Keralam - > and > > request you to refer all three volumes. > > > > If you do not want to believe on his own articles in TOA - then, > what > > can I do? But it is not prudent to misquote him - that he did not > > consider aspects. > > > > That is the reason - I asked for your personal experiences with > Shri > > KN Rao - so that we may understand his opinion. > > > > Regarding other books you quoted - I never commented on any of > them. > > Since I have not read them - how can I comment on their > interpretation. > > > > Throughout the debate - I have mentioned that, Late Santhanam, > Shri BV > > Raman, Shri KN Rao, Shri Sanjay Rath, Shri CS Patel, Shri VK > Choudhry > > etc - have considered all vargas as seperate charts, they have > used > > combinations / aspects in D charts. and all these are quite clear > in > > their writings. and Also - I presume that, most of these great > authors > > must have explored all possible available literature - before > forming > > their opinion. And also - they must have tested these > interpretation > > rules in their observational jyotish - before producing in their > books. > > > > The problem is not in truth or untruth; or in correct or incorrect > > interpretation. But heavily lies in the interpretation model. My > > contention is not on the fact that - Navamsa is not mapped on rashi > > (as this is one the method of Navamsa interpretation just like > navamsa > > dispositor theory) - but on your contention that > > > > a. there is No Divisional chart chakras > > b. These can not be interpreted as rasi chakra > > > > I also observed Shri KN Rao is misquoted through selected > references. > > > > Let us hope - that this endless debate is concluded through > predictive > > application in your case studies. > > > > For me - what eventually works is the only acceptable mode. > > > > regards / Prafulla > > > > , " vijayadas_pradeep " > > <vijayadas_pradeep@> wrote: > > > > > > Dear Prafulla ji > > > > > > Opposition is having amshas in rashis which are in 1/7.Aspect > are > > > based on rashi dispositions.Thus it is your assumption.(Rule > > > Parashara -Late Santhanam translation). > > > > > > For the full astrological community - Late Santhanam has written > in > > > bold letters,in the trasltion of magnum Opus BPHS,that as per > rules > > > given by mahamuni parshara,aspects are impossible.Do we need a > better > > > proof.Are you serious about pramana or have you really maup your > > > mind.If latter is the case,re is no point in discussion. > > > > > > Rashi,Riksha is not acceptable.Meshadi RASHIGE is not > > > acceptable.Bhrigowankaraka Varga(Mars and Venus) is not > > > acceptable.Late Santhanams view BPHS is not > acceptable.Dashadhyayi > > > hailed by prashana Marga an DR.Raman are not acceptable.Do you > know > > > the parampara in which Thalakkulathu Bhattathiri who wrote > > > Dashadhayayi.Do we have any clue about the Sansrit knowledge > they > > > had.We can never even imagine. > > > > > > We cannot accept giant names like GARGA.We cannot accept > > > Sruthakeerthi.We cannot accept Jeevasharma.Do weknow that the > were > > > giant figures who got knowedge from uncorrupted parmpara. > > > > > > Is this discussion about seeking truth or to defend some > discrepencie > > > that have crept through at any cost.I really doubt. > > > > > > Do you think i have to write this again and again.Pls check with > shri > > > PVR Narasimha Rao(who had given me reference -Late Santahanam). > > > > > > Regds > > > Pradeep > > > > > > oup , " Prafulla Gang " <jyotish@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Dear Pradeep ji > > > > > > > > I can only suggest you to refer to his articles in old issues > of > > > TOA. > > > > I am quoting his, as in my personal discussions - he has > referred > > > > navamsha combinations by mutual aspects also. > > > > > > > > What is opposition in the chart? is it not aspect? How am i > quoting > > > it > > > > wrong? > > > > > > > > regards / Prafulla > > > > > > > > , " vijayadas_pradeep " > > > > <vijayadas_pradeep@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Dear Prafulla ji > > > > > > > > > > It is your assumption regarding aspects by showing > opposition > > > etc.I > > > > > have quoted,late Santhanams own views in BPHS regarding > > > aspects.It > > > > > was not a mispelled word as he said ,i am unable to > understand > > > this > > > > > and fully accept my inability.He said Parashara has > explained in > > > a > > > > > previous chapter that how aspects happen and as per > that ,aspects > > > in > > > > > varga chakras are impossible. > > > > > > > > > > So pls understand that i am not misquoting anyone. > > > > > > > > > > Regds > > > > > Pradeep > > > > > > > > > > , " Prafulla Gang " > <jyotish@> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Pradeep ji > > > > > > > > > > > > I have already quoted shri Santhanam's view through case > > > studies by > > > > > > him, where he has explained opposition. > > > > > > > > > > > > I request - please do not misquote him. > > > > > > > > > > > > regards / Prafulla > > > > > > > > > > > > , " vijayadas_pradeep " > > > > > > <vijayadas_pradeep@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Bhaskar ji > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Every one knows that Dr.Raman takes aspects in > navamsha.Did > > > > > anyone > > > > > > > disagree with this.Kindly read what is being debated. > > > > > > > We are talking about whether aspects are possible.Late > > > Santhanam > > > > > > > while translating BPHS shlokas has sauid ,it is not > possible. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Regds > > > > > > > Pradeep > > > > > > > > > > > > > > , " Bhaskar " > > > <bhaskar_jyotish@> > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Notable Horoscopes by BV raman > > > > > > > > Page 161 > > > > > > > > Horoscope of Sri RamKrishna Paramhanasa > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > a sentence among the whole article give below- > > > > > > > > (Now I dont waste my time in searching for shlokas) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ----- Venus is not subject to any Malefic combinations > or > > > > > > > > aspects both in Rasi and navamsa. he is of course > > > > > > > > debilitated in Navamsha------ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thats sums up, one part of the debate . Or does it > not ? > > > > > > > > So any comments ? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > regards, > > > > > > > > Bhaskar. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 12, 2007 Report Share Posted July 12, 2007 Dear Bhaskar ji Thanks a lot.Now you have atleast accepted that,Late Santhanam was unable to understand accepts as they were against the rules set by Sages. But did any scholar of yesteryear had any doubt.Have you seen any difference in opinion between giants of yesteryears regarding these aspects.Can we show a single reference where such aspects are being used. Thus what does it mean -Contemporary astrologers are having doubts.Some say Karakamsha can be seen ,not rest.Some say Amshaka can be seen.Late Santhanam says aspects cannot be seen.Some says Swamsha is full chart.Some says it is not.Why do we have so many differences. Late DV Subbu Rao alone had views identical with that of scholars living 1000's of years back. Lagnashadvargake shloka can be understood with no difficulty when i follow the explanations given by such scholars. Shri Santhanam was honest enough to accept Truth and also say that aspects are impossible as per the rules given by sage.Thus he was unable to understand the aspect mentioned in Lagnashadvargake shloka. If see them from rashi chakra(as Raoji has explained in the case of Karakamsha) it is crystal clear. Regds Pradeep , " Bhaskar " <bhaskar_jyotish wrote: > > Dear Pradeepji, > > So primafacie considering the below note by Santhanamji, > wherein he has used the words " I am UNABLE to fully conceive > the LOGIC in ASPECTS in DIVISIONAL chart " does it not mean > that he has neither refused nor proposed to this theory ? > (Only with reference to this post, because if i give another > refrence by the same person, then it again may be proved > otherwise). > > How can we, then categorically write,state,proclaim > or demand, that aspects looking in Divisional Charts > is not right, outright ? > > regards, > bhaskar. > > > > > , " vijayadas_pradeep " > <vijayadas_pradeep@> wrote: > > > > Dear Prafulla ji > > > > Under his notes, Sri Santhanam wrote the following(BPHS): > > > > " ASPECTS are referred to in the DIVISIONAL CHARTS here. I am UNABLE > > to fully conceive the LOGIC in ASPECTS in DIVISIONAL charts for the > > SAGE himself referred to the longitudinal aspectual evaluations in > > an earlier chapter. Without commenting further on this controversial > > aspect I leave it at that, accepting my limitations to explain this > > fully. " > > > > > > Can you pls understand this.On the other hand you are quoting amshas > > on rashis which are in 1/7.Did i misquote anything?I talking about > > his opinion written in English and with crystal clarity on ASPECTS > > within Divisional chart. > > > > Hope you have seen the case of Gordon Brown.Can you pls see that all > > the conditions for Rajayoga are satisfied. > > > > Regds > > Pradeep > > , " Prafulla Gang " <jyotish@> > > wrote: > > > > > > Dear Pradeep ji > > > > > > Regarding Late Shri Santhanam - I mentioned what I read in TOA > > > articles and what I had discussed with him. I also mentioned on > > guru > > > venus in 1/7 mutual aspects - in D9 givinh marital happiness in the > > > example. Understandably, I can talk only - what I have read and/or > > > discussed with them. > > > > > > > > > I did not comment on his BPHS. Yes, I did quote his Deva Keralam - > > and > > > request you to refer all three volumes. > > > > > > If you do not want to believe on his own articles in TOA - then, > > what > > > can I do? But it is not prudent to misquote him - that he did not > > > consider aspects. > > > > > > That is the reason - I asked for your personal experiences with > > Shri > > > KN Rao - so that we may understand his opinion. > > > > > > Regarding other books you quoted - I never commented on any of > > them. > > > Since I have not read them - how can I comment on their > > interpretation. > > > > > > Throughout the debate - I have mentioned that, Late Santhanam, > > Shri BV > > > Raman, Shri KN Rao, Shri Sanjay Rath, Shri CS Patel, Shri VK > > Choudhry > > > etc - have considered all vargas as seperate charts, they have > > used > > > combinations / aspects in D charts. and all these are quite clear > > in > > > their writings. and Also - I presume that, most of these great > > authors > > > must have explored all possible available literature - before > > forming > > > their opinion. And also - they must have tested these > > interpretation > > > rules in their observational jyotish - before producing in their > > books. > > > > > > The problem is not in truth or untruth; or in correct or incorrect > > > interpretation. But heavily lies in the interpretation model. My > > > contention is not on the fact that - Navamsa is not mapped on rashi > > > (as this is one the method of Navamsa interpretation just like > > navamsa > > > dispositor theory) - but on your contention that > > > > > > a. there is No Divisional chart chakras > > > b. These can not be interpreted as rasi chakra > > > > > > I also observed Shri KN Rao is misquoted through selected > > references. > > > > > > Let us hope - that this endless debate is concluded through > > predictive > > > application in your case studies. > > > > > > For me - what eventually works is the only acceptable mode. > > > > > > regards / Prafulla > > > > > > , " vijayadas_pradeep " > > > <vijayadas_pradeep@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Dear Prafulla ji > > > > > > > > Opposition is having amshas in rashis which are in 1/7.Aspect > > are > > > > based on rashi dispositions.Thus it is your assumption.(Rule > > > > Parashara -Late Santhanam translation). > > > > > > > > For the full astrological community - Late Santhanam has written > > in > > > > bold letters,in the trasltion of magnum Opus BPHS,that as per > > rules > > > > given by mahamuni parshara,aspects are impossible.Do we need a > > better > > > > proof.Are you serious about pramana or have you really maup your > > > > mind.If latter is the case,re is no point in discussion. > > > > > > > > Rashi,Riksha is not acceptable.Meshadi RASHIGE is not > > > > acceptable.Bhrigowankaraka Varga(Mars and Venus) is not > > > > acceptable.Late Santhanams view BPHS is not > > acceptable.Dashadhyayi > > > > hailed by prashana Marga an DR.Raman are not acceptable.Do you > > know > > > > the parampara in which Thalakkulathu Bhattathiri who wrote > > > > Dashadhayayi.Do we have any clue about the Sansrit knowledge > > they > > > > had.We can never even imagine. > > > > > > > > We cannot accept giant names like GARGA.We cannot accept > > > > Sruthakeerthi.We cannot accept Jeevasharma.Do weknow that the > > were > > > > giant figures who got knowedge from uncorrupted parmpara. > > > > > > > > Is this discussion about seeking truth or to defend some > > discrepencie > > > > that have crept through at any cost.I really doubt. > > > > > > > > Do you think i have to write this again and again.Pls check with > > shri > > > > PVR Narasimha Rao(who had given me reference -Late Santahanam). > > > > > > > > Regds > > > > Pradeep > > > > > > > > oup , " Prafulla Gang " <jyotish@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Dear Pradeep ji > > > > > > > > > > I can only suggest you to refer to his articles in old issues > > of > > > > TOA. > > > > > I am quoting his, as in my personal discussions - he has > > referred > > > > > navamsha combinations by mutual aspects also. > > > > > > > > > > What is opposition in the chart? is it not aspect? How am i > > quoting > > > > it > > > > > wrong? > > > > > > > > > > regards / Prafulla > > > > > > > > > > , " vijayadas_pradeep " > > > > > <vijayadas_pradeep@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Prafulla ji > > > > > > > > > > > > It is your assumption regarding aspects by showing > > opposition > > > > etc.I > > > > > > have quoted,late Santhanams own views in BPHS regarding > > > > aspects.It > > > > > > was not a mispelled word as he said ,i am unable to > > understand > > > > this > > > > > > and fully accept my inability.He said Parashara has > > explained in > > > > a > > > > > > previous chapter that how aspects happen and as per > > that ,aspects > > > > in > > > > > > varga chakras are impossible. > > > > > > > > > > > > So pls understand that i am not misquoting anyone. > > > > > > > > > > > > Regds > > > > > > Pradeep > > > > > > > > > > > > , " Prafulla Gang " > > <jyotish@> > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Pradeep ji > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I have already quoted shri Santhanam's view through case > > > > studies by > > > > > > > him, where he has explained opposition. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I request - please do not misquote him. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > regards / Prafulla > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In , " vijayadas_pradeep " > > > > > > > <vijayadas_pradeep@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Bhaskar ji > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Every one knows that Dr.Raman takes aspects in > > navamsha.Did > > > > > > anyone > > > > > > > > disagree with this.Kindly read what is being debated. > > > > > > > > We are talking about whether aspects are possible.Late > > > > Santhanam > > > > > > > > while translating BPHS shlokas has sauid ,it is not > > possible. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Regds > > > > > > > > Pradeep > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > , " Bhaskar " > > > > <bhaskar_jyotish@> > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Notable Horoscopes by BV raman > > > > > > > > > Page 161 > > > > > > > > > Horoscope of Sri RamKrishna Paramhanasa > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > a sentence among the whole article give below- > > > > > > > > > (Now I dont waste my time in searching for shlokas) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ----- Venus is not subject to any Malefic combinations > > or > > > > > > > > > aspects both in Rasi and navamsa. he is of course > > > > > > > > > debilitated in Navamsha------ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thats sums up, one part of the debate . Or does it > > not ? > > > > > > > > > So any comments ? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > regards, > > > > > > > > > Bhaskar. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 12, 2007 Report Share Posted July 12, 2007 Dear Pradeepji, I am a hard nut to crack and dont accept anything and neither refute anything easily. For have seen the world in close encounters to know better, that views keep on changing in the same individual, with newer realisations. I just wish to know, that if, as per your observation (Not Mines- as You misquoted)- Late Santhanamji was unable to understand, then am I speaking to a more wiser person than Late Santhanamji, who understands better than him, and has outrightly condemned use of aspects in Div.Charts which Santhanamji did not do. Raoji also used to see aspects from Divisional Charts. then why not accept that, if You accept his Karakamsha from the Rashi ? regards, Bhaskar. , " vijayadas_pradeep " <vijayadas_pradeep wrote: > > Dear Bhaskar ji > > Thanks a lot.Now you have atleast accepted that,Late Santhanam was > unable to understand accepts as they were against the rules set by > Sages. > > But did any scholar of yesteryear had any doubt.Have you seen any > difference in opinion between giants of yesteryears regarding these > aspects.Can we show a single reference where such aspects are being > used. > > Thus what does it mean -Contemporary astrologers are having > doubts.Some say Karakamsha can be seen ,not rest.Some say Amshaka > can be seen.Late Santhanam says aspects cannot be seen.Some says > Swamsha is full chart.Some says it is not.Why do we have so many > differences. > > Late DV Subbu Rao alone had views identical with that of scholars > living 1000's of years back. > > Lagnashadvargake shloka can be understood with no difficulty when i > follow the explanations given by such scholars. > > Shri Santhanam was honest enough to accept Truth and also say that > aspects are impossible as per the rules given by sage.Thus he was > unable to understand the aspect mentioned in Lagnashadvargake shloka. > > If see them from rashi chakra(as Raoji has explained in the case of > Karakamsha) it is crystal clear. > > Regds > Pradeep > > , " Bhaskar " > <bhaskar_jyotish@> wrote: > > > > Dear Pradeepji, > > > > So primafacie considering the below note by Santhanamji, > > wherein he has used the words " I am UNABLE to fully conceive > > the LOGIC in ASPECTS in DIVISIONAL chart " does it not mean > > that he has neither refused nor proposed to this theory ? > > (Only with reference to this post, because if i give another > > refrence by the same person, then it again may be proved > > otherwise). > > > > How can we, then categorically write,state,proclaim > > or demand, that aspects looking in Divisional Charts > > is not right, outright ? > > > > regards, > > bhaskar. > > > > > > > > > > , " vijayadas_pradeep " > > <vijayadas_pradeep@> wrote: > > > > > > Dear Prafulla ji > > > > > > Under his notes, Sri Santhanam wrote the following(BPHS): > > > > > > " ASPECTS are referred to in the DIVISIONAL CHARTS here. I am > UNABLE > > > to fully conceive the LOGIC in ASPECTS in DIVISIONAL charts for > the > > > SAGE himself referred to the longitudinal aspectual evaluations > in > > > an earlier chapter. Without commenting further on this > controversial > > > aspect I leave it at that, accepting my limitations to explain > this > > > fully. " > > > > > > > > > Can you pls understand this.On the other hand you are quoting > amshas > > > on rashis which are in 1/7.Did i misquote anything?I talking > about > > > his opinion written in English and with crystal clarity on > ASPECTS > > > within Divisional chart. > > > > > > Hope you have seen the case of Gordon Brown.Can you pls see that > all > > > the conditions for Rajayoga are satisfied. > > > > > > Regds > > > Pradeep > > > , " Prafulla Gang " <jyotish@> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > Dear Pradeep ji > > > > > > > > Regarding Late Shri Santhanam - I mentioned what I read in TOA > > > > articles and what I had discussed with him. I also mentioned > on > > > guru > > > > venus in 1/7 mutual aspects - in D9 givinh marital happiness > in the > > > > example. Understandably, I can talk only - what I have read > and/or > > > > discussed with them. > > > > > > > > > > > > I did not comment on his BPHS. Yes, I did quote his Deva > Keralam - > > > and > > > > request you to refer all three volumes. > > > > > > > > If you do not want to believe on his own articles in TOA - > then, > > > what > > > > can I do? But it is not prudent to misquote him - that he did > not > > > > consider aspects. > > > > > > > > That is the reason - I asked for your personal experiences > with > > > Shri > > > > KN Rao - so that we may understand his opinion. > > > > > > > > Regarding other books you quoted - I never commented on any of > > > them. > > > > Since I have not read them - how can I comment on their > > > interpretation. > > > > > > > > Throughout the debate - I have mentioned that, Late Santhanam, > > > Shri BV > > > > Raman, Shri KN Rao, Shri Sanjay Rath, Shri CS Patel, Shri VK > > > Choudhry > > > > etc - have considered all vargas as seperate charts, they > have > > > used > > > > combinations / aspects in D charts. and all these are quite > clear > > > in > > > > their writings. and Also - I presume that, most of these great > > > authors > > > > must have explored all possible available literature - before > > > forming > > > > their opinion. And also - they must have tested these > > > interpretation > > > > rules in their observational jyotish - before producing in > their > > > books. > > > > > > > > The problem is not in truth or untruth; or in correct or > incorrect > > > > interpretation. But heavily lies in the interpretation model. > My > > > > contention is not on the fact that - Navamsa is not mapped on > rashi > > > > (as this is one the method of Navamsa interpretation just like > > > navamsa > > > > dispositor theory) - but on your contention that > > > > > > > > a. there is No Divisional chart chakras > > > > b. These can not be interpreted as rasi chakra > > > > > > > > I also observed Shri KN Rao is misquoted through selected > > > references. > > > > > > > > Let us hope - that this endless debate is concluded through > > > predictive > > > > application in your case studies. > > > > > > > > For me - what eventually works is the only acceptable mode. > > > > > > > > regards / Prafulla > > > > > > > > , " vijayadas_pradeep " > > > > <vijayadas_pradeep@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Dear Prafulla ji > > > > > > > > > > Opposition is having amshas in rashis which are in > 1/7.Aspect > > > are > > > > > based on rashi dispositions.Thus it is your assumption.(Rule > > > > > Parashara -Late Santhanam translation). > > > > > > > > > > For the full astrological community - Late Santhanam has > written > > > in > > > > > bold letters,in the trasltion of magnum Opus BPHS,that as > per > > > rules > > > > > given by mahamuni parshara,aspects are impossible.Do we need > a > > > better > > > > > proof.Are you serious about pramana or have you really maup > your > > > > > mind.If latter is the case,re is no point in discussion. > > > > > > > > > > Rashi,Riksha is not acceptable.Meshadi RASHIGE is not > > > > > acceptable.Bhrigowankaraka Varga(Mars and Venus) is not > > > > > acceptable.Late Santhanams view BPHS is not > > > acceptable.Dashadhyayi > > > > > hailed by prashana Marga an DR.Raman are not acceptable.Do > you > > > know > > > > > the parampara in which Thalakkulathu Bhattathiri who wrote > > > > > Dashadhayayi.Do we have any clue about the Sansrit knowledge > > > they > > > > > had.We can never even imagine. > > > > > > > > > > We cannot accept giant names like GARGA.We cannot accept > > > > > Sruthakeerthi.We cannot accept Jeevasharma.Do weknow that > the > > > were > > > > > giant figures who got knowedge from uncorrupted parmpara. > > > > > > > > > > Is this discussion about seeking truth or to defend some > > > discrepencie > > > > > that have crept through at any cost.I really doubt. > > > > > > > > > > Do you think i have to write this again and again.Pls check > with > > > shri > > > > > PVR Narasimha Rao(who had given me reference -Late > Santahanam). > > > > > > > > > > Regds > > > > > Pradeep > > > > > > > > > > oup , " Prafulla Gang " <jyotish@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Pradeep ji > > > > > > > > > > > > I can only suggest you to refer to his articles in old > issues > > > of > > > > > TOA. > > > > > > I am quoting his, as in my personal discussions - he has > > > referred > > > > > > navamsha combinations by mutual aspects also. > > > > > > > > > > > > What is opposition in the chart? is it not aspect? How am > i > > > quoting > > > > > it > > > > > > wrong? > > > > > > > > > > > > regards / Prafulla > > > > > > > > > > > > , " vijayadas_pradeep " > > > > > > <vijayadas_pradeep@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Prafulla ji > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It is your assumption regarding aspects by showing > > > opposition > > > > > etc.I > > > > > > > have quoted,late Santhanams own views in BPHS regarding > > > > > aspects.It > > > > > > > was not a mispelled word as he said ,i am unable to > > > understand > > > > > this > > > > > > > and fully accept my inability.He said Parashara has > > > explained in > > > > > a > > > > > > > previous chapter that how aspects happen and as per > > > that ,aspects > > > > > in > > > > > > > varga chakras are impossible. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So pls understand that i am not misquoting anyone. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Regds > > > > > > > Pradeep > > > > > > > > > > > > > > , " Prafulla Gang " > > > <jyotish@> > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Pradeep ji > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I have already quoted shri Santhanam's view through > case > > > > > studies by > > > > > > > > him, where he has explained opposition. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I request - please do not misquote him. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > regards / Prafulla > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In > , " vijayadas_pradeep " > > > > > > > > <vijayadas_pradeep@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Bhaskar ji > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Every one knows that Dr.Raman takes aspects in > > > navamsha.Did > > > > > > > anyone > > > > > > > > > disagree with this.Kindly read what is being debated. > > > > > > > > > We are talking about whether aspects are > possible.Late > > > > > Santhanam > > > > > > > > > while translating BPHS shlokas has sauid ,it is not > > > possible. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Regds > > > > > > > > > Pradeep > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > , " Bhaskar " > > > > > <bhaskar_jyotish@> > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Notable Horoscopes by BV raman > > > > > > > > > > Page 161 > > > > > > > > > > Horoscope of Sri RamKrishna Paramhanasa > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > a sentence among the whole article give below- > > > > > > > > > > (Now I dont waste my time in searching for shlokas) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ----- Venus is not subject to any Malefic > combinations > > > or > > > > > > > > > > aspects both in Rasi and navamsa. he is of course > > > > > > > > > > debilitated in Navamsha------ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thats sums up, one part of the debate . Or does it > > > not ? > > > > > > > > > > So any comments ? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > regards, > > > > > > > > > > Bhaskar. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 12, 2007 Report Share Posted July 12, 2007 Dear Bhaskar ji Thanks a lot for your valuable time. Regds Pradeep , " Bhaskar " <bhaskar_jyotish wrote: > > Dear Pradeepji, > > I am a hard nut to crack and dont accept anything and > neither refute anything easily. > > For have seen the world in close encounters to know better, > that views keep on changing in the same individual, with > newer realisations. > > I just wish to know, that if, as per your observation > (Not Mines- as You misquoted)- Late Santhanamji was unable > to understand, then am I speaking to a more wiser person > than Late Santhanamji, who understands better than him, > and has outrightly condemned use of aspects in Div.Charts > which Santhanamji did not do. > > Raoji also used to see aspects from Divisional Charts. > then why not accept that, if You accept > his Karakamsha from the Rashi ? > > regards, > Bhaskar. > > > > > , " vijayadas_pradeep " > <vijayadas_pradeep@> wrote: > > > > Dear Bhaskar ji > > > > Thanks a lot.Now you have atleast accepted that,Late Santhanam was > > unable to understand accepts as they were against the rules set by > > Sages. > > > > But did any scholar of yesteryear had any doubt.Have you seen any > > difference in opinion between giants of yesteryears regarding these > > aspects.Can we show a single reference where such aspects are being > > used. > > > > Thus what does it mean -Contemporary astrologers are having > > doubts.Some say Karakamsha can be seen ,not rest.Some say Amshaka > > can be seen.Late Santhanam says aspects cannot be seen.Some says > > Swamsha is full chart.Some says it is not.Why do we have so many > > differences. > > > > Late DV Subbu Rao alone had views identical with that of scholars > > living 1000's of years back. > > > > Lagnashadvargake shloka can be understood with no difficulty when i > > follow the explanations given by such scholars. > > > > Shri Santhanam was honest enough to accept Truth and also say that > > aspects are impossible as per the rules given by sage.Thus he was > > unable to understand the aspect mentioned in Lagnashadvargake shloka. > > > > If see them from rashi chakra(as Raoji has explained in the case of > > Karakamsha) it is crystal clear. > > > > Regds > > Pradeep > > > > , " Bhaskar " > > <bhaskar_jyotish@> wrote: > > > > > > Dear Pradeepji, > > > > > > So primafacie considering the below note by Santhanamji, > > > wherein he has used the words " I am UNABLE to fully conceive > > > the LOGIC in ASPECTS in DIVISIONAL chart " does it not mean > > > that he has neither refused nor proposed to this theory ? > > > (Only with reference to this post, because if i give another > > > refrence by the same person, then it again may be proved > > > otherwise). > > > > > > How can we, then categorically write,state,proclaim > > > or demand, that aspects looking in Divisional Charts > > > is not right, outright ? > > > > > > regards, > > > bhaskar. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > , " vijayadas_pradeep " > > > <vijayadas_pradeep@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Dear Prafulla ji > > > > > > > > Under his notes, Sri Santhanam wrote the following(BPHS): > > > > > > > > " ASPECTS are referred to in the DIVISIONAL CHARTS here. I am > > UNABLE > > > > to fully conceive the LOGIC in ASPECTS in DIVISIONAL charts for > > the > > > > SAGE himself referred to the longitudinal aspectual evaluations > > in > > > > an earlier chapter. Without commenting further on this > > controversial > > > > aspect I leave it at that, accepting my limitations to explain > > this > > > > fully. " > > > > > > > > > > > > Can you pls understand this.On the other hand you are quoting > > amshas > > > > on rashis which are in 1/7.Did i misquote anything?I talking > > about > > > > his opinion written in English and with crystal clarity on > > ASPECTS > > > > within Divisional chart. > > > > > > > > Hope you have seen the case of Gordon Brown.Can you pls see that > > all > > > > the conditions for Rajayoga are satisfied. > > > > > > > > Regds > > > > Pradeep > > > > , " Prafulla Gang " <jyotish@> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Dear Pradeep ji > > > > > > > > > > Regarding Late Shri Santhanam - I mentioned what I read in TOA > > > > > articles and what I had discussed with him. I also mentioned > > on > > > > guru > > > > > venus in 1/7 mutual aspects - in D9 givinh marital happiness > > in the > > > > > example. Understandably, I can talk only - what I have read > > and/or > > > > > discussed with them. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I did not comment on his BPHS. Yes, I did quote his Deva > > Keralam - > > > > and > > > > > request you to refer all three volumes. > > > > > > > > > > If you do not want to believe on his own articles in TOA - > > then, > > > > what > > > > > can I do? But it is not prudent to misquote him - that he did > > not > > > > > consider aspects. > > > > > > > > > > That is the reason - I asked for your personal experiences > > with > > > > Shri > > > > > KN Rao - so that we may understand his opinion. > > > > > > > > > > Regarding other books you quoted - I never commented on any of > > > > them. > > > > > Since I have not read them - how can I comment on their > > > > interpretation. > > > > > > > > > > Throughout the debate - I have mentioned that, Late Santhanam, > > > > Shri BV > > > > > Raman, Shri KN Rao, Shri Sanjay Rath, Shri CS Patel, Shri VK > > > > Choudhry > > > > > etc - have considered all vargas as seperate charts, they > > have > > > > used > > > > > combinations / aspects in D charts. and all these are quite > > clear > > > > in > > > > > their writings. and Also - I presume that, most of these great > > > > authors > > > > > must have explored all possible available literature - before > > > > forming > > > > > their opinion. And also - they must have tested these > > > > interpretation > > > > > rules in their observational jyotish - before producing in > > their > > > > books. > > > > > > > > > > The problem is not in truth or untruth; or in correct or > > incorrect > > > > > interpretation. But heavily lies in the interpretation model. > > My > > > > > contention is not on the fact that - Navamsa is not mapped on > > rashi > > > > > (as this is one the method of Navamsa interpretation just like > > > > navamsa > > > > > dispositor theory) - but on your contention that > > > > > > > > > > a. there is No Divisional chart chakras > > > > > b. These can not be interpreted as rasi chakra > > > > > > > > > > I also observed Shri KN Rao is misquoted through selected > > > > references. > > > > > > > > > > Let us hope - that this endless debate is concluded through > > > > predictive > > > > > application in your case studies. > > > > > > > > > > For me - what eventually works is the only acceptable mode. > > > > > > > > > > regards / Prafulla > > > > > > > > > > , " vijayadas_pradeep " > > > > > <vijayadas_pradeep@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Prafulla ji > > > > > > > > > > > > Opposition is having amshas in rashis which are in > > 1/7.Aspect > > > > are > > > > > > based on rashi dispositions.Thus it is your assumption. (Rule > > > > > > Parashara -Late Santhanam translation). > > > > > > > > > > > > For the full astrological community - Late Santhanam has > > written > > > > in > > > > > > bold letters,in the trasltion of magnum Opus BPHS,that as > > per > > > > rules > > > > > > given by mahamuni parshara,aspects are impossible.Do we need > > a > > > > better > > > > > > proof.Are you serious about pramana or have you really maup > > your > > > > > > mind.If latter is the case,re is no point in discussion. > > > > > > > > > > > > Rashi,Riksha is not acceptable.Meshadi RASHIGE is not > > > > > > acceptable.Bhrigowankaraka Varga(Mars and Venus) is not > > > > > > acceptable.Late Santhanams view BPHS is not > > > > acceptable.Dashadhyayi > > > > > > hailed by prashana Marga an DR.Raman are not acceptable.Do > > you > > > > know > > > > > > the parampara in which Thalakkulathu Bhattathiri who wrote > > > > > > Dashadhayayi.Do we have any clue about the Sansrit knowledge > > > > they > > > > > > had.We can never even imagine. > > > > > > > > > > > > We cannot accept giant names like GARGA.We cannot accept > > > > > > Sruthakeerthi.We cannot accept Jeevasharma.Do weknow that > > the > > > > were > > > > > > giant figures who got knowedge from uncorrupted parmpara. > > > > > > > > > > > > Is this discussion about seeking truth or to defend some > > > > discrepencie > > > > > > that have crept through at any cost.I really doubt. > > > > > > > > > > > > Do you think i have to write this again and again.Pls check > > with > > > > shri > > > > > > PVR Narasimha Rao(who had given me reference -Late > > Santahanam). > > > > > > > > > > > > Regds > > > > > > Pradeep > > > > > > > > > > > > oup , " Prafulla Gang " <jyotish@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Pradeep ji > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I can only suggest you to refer to his articles in old > > issues > > > > of > > > > > > TOA. > > > > > > > I am quoting his, as in my personal discussions - he has > > > > referred > > > > > > > navamsha combinations by mutual aspects also. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What is opposition in the chart? is it not aspect? How am > > i > > > > quoting > > > > > > it > > > > > > > wrong? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > regards / Prafulla > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In , " vijayadas_pradeep " > > > > > > > <vijayadas_pradeep@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Prafulla ji > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It is your assumption regarding aspects by showing > > > > opposition > > > > > > etc.I > > > > > > > > have quoted,late Santhanams own views in BPHS regarding > > > > > > aspects.It > > > > > > > > was not a mispelled word as he said ,i am unable to > > > > understand > > > > > > this > > > > > > > > and fully accept my inability.He said Parashara has > > > > explained in > > > > > > a > > > > > > > > previous chapter that how aspects happen and as per > > > > that ,aspects > > > > > > in > > > > > > > > varga chakras are impossible. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So pls understand that i am not misquoting anyone. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Regds > > > > > > > > Pradeep > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > , " Prafulla Gang " > > > > <jyotish@> > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Pradeep ji > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I have already quoted shri Santhanam's view through > > case > > > > > > studies by > > > > > > > > > him, where he has explained opposition. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I request - please do not misquote him. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > regards / Prafulla > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In > > , " vijayadas_pradeep " > > > > > > > > > <vijayadas_pradeep@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Bhaskar ji > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Every one knows that Dr.Raman takes aspects in > > > > navamsha.Did > > > > > > > > anyone > > > > > > > > > > disagree with this.Kindly read what is being debated. > > > > > > > > > > We are talking about whether aspects are > > possible.Late > > > > > > Santhanam > > > > > > > > > > while translating BPHS shlokas has sauid ,it is not > > > > possible. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Regds > > > > > > > > > > Pradeep > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > , " Bhaskar " > > > > > > <bhaskar_jyotish@> > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Notable Horoscopes by BV raman > > > > > > > > > > > Page 161 > > > > > > > > > > > Horoscope of Sri RamKrishna Paramhanasa > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > a sentence among the whole article give below- > > > > > > > > > > > (Now I dont waste my time in searching for shlokas) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ----- Venus is not subject to any Malefic > > combinations > > > > or > > > > > > > > > > > aspects both in Rasi and navamsa. he is of course > > > > > > > > > > > debilitated in Navamsha------ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thats sums up, one part of the debate . Or does it > > > > not ? > > > > > > > > > > > So any comments ? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > regards, > > > > > > > > > > > Bhaskar. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 12, 2007 Report Share Posted July 12, 2007 I think that would be counterintuitive. Obviously, some similar effect manifests given a pattern between any number of charts. For example, say 500 charts have what we may term an aspect, in a varga chakra, regardless of its pramanik existance or not. On a purely scientific basis -- even on a logical basis -- if 500 given charts exhibit some similarity with respect to a given aspect in a certain varga chart, I am confident that they will exhibit similar effects in said natives, albeit to a subtler degree. Humbly, adas vijayadas_pradeep <vijayadas_pradeep wrote: Dear Prafulla ji It is your assumption regarding aspects by showing opposition etc.I have quoted,late Santhanams own views in BPHS regarding aspects.It was not a mispelled word as he said ,i am unable to understand this and fully accept my inability.He said Parashara has explained in a previous chapter that how aspects happen and as per that ,aspects in varga chakras are impossible. So pls understand that i am not misquoting anyone. Regds Pradeep , " Prafulla Gang " <jyotish wrote: > > Dear Pradeep ji > > I have already quoted shri Santhanam's view through case studies by > him, where he has explained opposition. > > I request - please do not misquote him. > > regards / Prafulla > > , " vijayadas_pradeep " > <vijayadas_pradeep@> wrote: > > > > Dear Bhaskar ji > > > > Every one knows that Dr.Raman takes aspects in navamsha.Did anyone > > disagree with this.Kindly read what is being debated. > > We are talking about whether aspects are possible.Late Santhanam > > while translating BPHS shlokas has sauid ,it is not possible. > > > > Regds > > Pradeep > > > > , " Bhaskar " <bhaskar_jyotish@> > > wrote: > > > > > > Notable Horoscopes by BV raman > > > Page 161 > > > Horoscope of Sri RamKrishna Paramhanasa > > > > > > a sentence among the whole article give below- > > > (Now I dont waste my time in searching for shlokas) > > > > > > ----- Venus is not subject to any Malefic combinations or > > > aspects both in Rasi and navamsa. he is of course > > > debilitated in Navamsha------ > > > > > > Thats sums up, one part of the debate . Or does it not ? > > > So any comments ? > > > > > > regards, > > > Bhaskar. > > > > > > Looking for a deal? Find great prices on flights and hotels with FareChase. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.